Hi, On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:45:37AM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: > > On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, 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. > > > > You wanted to say "sequential == false"? > > > >> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. > > > > This is sequential == false: > > > > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 > > > > This is sequential == true: > > > > colocation together inf: dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 dummy4 > > > > Thanks, > > > > Dejan > > > I guess colocation syntax needs to be expanded to allow something like this > > colocation only-one -inf: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true") > > colocation together 5000: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true")
How's this different from a regular constraint? Thanks, Dejan > > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
