On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > 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? >
Because it does not create a resource set with two resources and if you put it in parentheses, it creates set with sequential="false" 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