On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote: > Hi, Yan > > An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry. > > (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote: >> I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default >> placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the >> "default" is somewhat intended not to be affected by any "placement >> strategy" so that the behaviors of existing pengine test cases and >> users' deployments remain unchanged. > I think that a function dispersed with the number of the start of the > resource has a problem at the time of "default" setting. > > This problem is the Pacemaker-1.0 series, but does the same movement. > If it could be settled by this correction, I thought a correction to be > applicable in Pacemaker-1.0. > > Should not this problem be revised? This would affect dozens of existing regression tests, although most of the changes are just the scores of clone instances, which are due to different resource allocating orders. Given 1.0 is in such a maintenance state, I'm not sure we should do that for 1.0.
Andrew, what do you think about it? Perhaps we should fix the resource-number-balancing for "default" strategy in 1.1 at least? > >> >> For "utilization" strategy, load-balancing is still done based on the >> number of resources allocated to a node. That might be a choice. >> > When I do not set capacity by "utilization" setting in Pacemaker-1.1 , > expected movement is possible! > > Best Regards, > Yuusuke IIDA > Regards, Yan -- Gao,Yan <y...@novell.com> Software Engineer China Server Team, SUSE. _______________________________________________ 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
