On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> 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". > > They are. > > Advisory is the only way to deal with the > "but-dont-care-if-one-dies-or-is-not-runable" part. > >> 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?
what about this part? what do I need to do to prevent them from running on different nodes for sure? >> >> 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 > > Strange. Dejan? > >> >> 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? > > Score = -inf, plus the patch, plus sequential = true (or unset). > Not sure how that looks in shell syntax though. My guess is for two resources it's colocation onlyone -inf: _rsc_set_ dummy1 dummy2 and a patch. Would you include it in 1.0.9, by any chance? Thank you, 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
