On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Kurz <andreas.k...@linbit.com> > wrote: >> On Tuesday 15 June 2010 08:40:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >>>>> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me" >>>> >>>> Andrew closed this bug >>>> (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as >>>> resolved, but I respectfully disagree. >>>> >>>> I will try to explain a problem again in this list. >>>> >>>> lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same node. >>>> They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be >>>> stopped. You would do this by using a resource set, like this: >>>> >>>> primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>> primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>> primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) >>>> >>>> and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I >>>> attached hb_report to the case to prove it. >>>> >>>> Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have >>>> sequential="false" for the colocation set." But sequential="false" means >>>> doesn't matter what order do they start. >>> >>> No. Thats not what it means. >>> And I believe I should know. >>> >>> It means that the members of the set are NOT collocated with each >>> other, only with any preceding set. >> >> Just for clarification: >> >> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 >> >> .... is a shortcut for: >> >> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy1 >> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy2 >> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy3 >> >> ... is that correct? > > Only if sequential != false. > For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. > >> >> To pick up Vadym's Question: >> >> * what would be the correct syntax to say >> "run-together-but-dont-care-if-one- >> dies-or-is-not-runable"? > > Choose a score < inf, just like regular colocation constraints.
Ah, ok, thanks, I guess in my mind anything less then inf was "advisory". As long as I keep it above any resource-stickiness it should be in fact mandatory, right? Or something else needs to be taken to consideration? On a side note, I was trying to figure out how to make a set from two resources, so I just added a proper xml and checked what crm shell say about it. And it shows it like this: colocation together 5000: _rsc_set_ dummy1 dummy2 Who knew? I didn't see it anywhere in documentation. Anyway, just so I get it right, what would be the opposite constraint (which is what this thread started from) If I want to have same dummy1, dummy2, dummy3 resources, but I don't want any of them ever to run simultaneously on the same host. What wold be the proper anti-colocation constraint for this configuration? Thanks, Vadym _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
