On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:53:07PM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >> >> On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >>>>> >>>>> what about this part? what do I need to do to prevent them from running >>>>> on different nodes for sure? >>>> >>>> You can't have it both ways. >>>> Either they have to run on the same node or they can remain active >>>> when one or more die. >>>> >>>> Although you could do: >>>> >>>> d1 ( d2 d3 d4 ) >>>> >>>> That would almost get what you want, unless d1 dies. >>> >>> I guess I would have to keep the most significant as an anchor, I can >>> leave with it. >>> Unfortunately, as far as I understand, there is no way do define this >>> in shell config now, because shell adds sequential=false when it sees >>> (). > > Yes it does. So, you want to have two adjacent sequential sets in > one constraint? Not very elegant, but I guess that this would do > until we figure out how to represent it: > > colocation c1 inf: p1:Started p2 p3 p4 > > In xml: > > <rsc_colocation id="c1" score="500"> > <resource_set id="c1-0" role="Started"> > <resource_ref id="p1"/> > </resource_set> > <resource_set id="c1-1"> > <resource_ref id="p2"/> > <resource_ref id="p3"/> > <resource_ref id="p4"/> > </resource_set> > </rsc_colocation> > > Thanks,
But I think it should be at the end, like this: colocation together 500: d1 d2 anchor:Started to use the "anchor" approach? Right? 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
