Hi, On Thu, 29 Oct 2009 14:39 +0100, "Lars Marowsky-Bree" <l...@suse.de> wrote: > Hi all, > > I have a pretty common use case - 4-16 nodes with OCFS2 etc, hosting a > ton of Xen/KVM guests. > > Compacting the OCFS2 setup was pretty easy - > http://www.advogato.org/person/lmb/diary.html?start=104 - and that part > seems short enough. > > For each guest, I need an order and collocation constraint with the base > resources, which becomes complex and lengthy very quickly. Just to > illustrate my point: > > colocation dummy1-c inf: base-clone dummy1 > colocation dummy10-c inf: base-clone dummy10 > colocation dummy11-c inf: base-clone dummy11 > colocation dummy12-c inf: base-clone dummy12 > colocation dummy13-c inf: base-clone dummy13 > colocation dummy14-c inf: base-clone dummy14 > colocation dummy15-c inf: base-clone dummy15 > colocation dummy16-c inf: base-clone dummy16 > colocation dummy17-c inf: base-clone dummy17 > colocation dummy18-c inf: base-clone dummy18 > colocation dummy19-c inf: base-clone dummy19 > colocation dummy2-c inf: base-clone dummy2 > colocation dummy3-c inf: base-clone dummy3 > colocation dummy4-c inf: base-clone dummy4 > colocation dummy5-c inf: base-clone dummy5 > colocation dummy6-c inf: base-clone dummy6 > colocation dummy7-c inf: base-clone dummy7 > colocation dummy8-c inf: base-clone dummy8 > colocation dummy9-c inf: base-clone dummy9 > order dummy1-o 0: base-clone dummy1 > order dummy10-o 0: base-clone dummy10 > order dummy11-o 0: base-clone dummy11 > order dummy12-o 0: base-clone dummy12 > order dummy13-o 0: base-clone dummy13 > order dummy14-o 0: base-clone dummy14 > order dummy15-o 0: base-clone dummy15 > order dummy16-o 0: base-clone dummy16 > order dummy17-o 0: base-clone dummy17 > order dummy18-o 0: base-clone dummy18 > order dummy19-o 0: base-clone dummy19 > order dummy2-o 0: base-clone dummy2 > order dummy3-o 0: base-clone dummy3 > order dummy4-o 0: base-clone dummy4 > order dummy5-o 0: base-clone dummy5 > order dummy6-o 0: base-clone dummy6 > order dummy7-o 0: base-clone dummy7 > order dummy8-o 0: base-clone dummy8 > order dummy9-o 0: base-clone dummy9 > > > There's a bunch of open issues (resource_sets not supporting score="0", > the crm shell not supporting resource_sets at all),
That's on the todo list, I've even started working on it, but then had an issue with funny way resource sets are constructed in CIB. We had a discussion about that last year. > but I'd even more > prefer if I didn't have to have both the order and collocation > constraints. > > Could we introduce an "conjoin" dependency which merges both? I don't > much care whether this is done at the XML/CIB level, or at the shell > level (detect duplication and merge for the shell syntax - the advantage > would be that none of the other CIB consumers would need to be taught > about it); it should allow, of course, to specify both the ordering and > collocation scores. > > So, I'd imagine that the above could be represented in the shell syntax > as: > > conjoin dummies-dep base-clone {dummy1, dummy2, dummy3, ...} \ > meta score_collocation=infinity score_order=0 There are no shell constructs which are rendered as two or more CIB elements. I guess that this should be possible, but really can't say until I take a thorough look at the implementation. BTW, I guess that there are other CIB phrases which are commonly in use. Thanks, Dejan > This would be an extremely desirable usability improvement, IMNSHO. I > welcome your feedback. > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list > Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Send your email first class _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker