On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Gao,Yan <y...@novell.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about it...
>
> On 07/14/11 12:21, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> This loop looks wrong
>>
>> + for(gIter2 = resource1->rsc_cons; gIter2 != NULL; gIter2 =
>> gIter2->next) {
>>
>> You're very dependant on the number and order of constraints because
>> of the way resource1_weight is being updated.
>> AFAICS, this only works if there is a single non INFINITY constraint.
> Indeed. We can hardly tell what exactly the resources' scores are before
> allocating resources. The scores would be merged/updated during
> allocating. That means that we can hardly tell what the best allocating
> order is before allocating resources. What "sort_rsc_process_order()"
> does is just to predict a relatively ideal order.
>
>>
>> I'll take a look at the before and after results tomorrow and see if
>> there might be a better way to achieve the same results.
> That would be great. Thanks!
>
Is there a bug I can reference in the commit message?
Can someone file one if not?
_______________________________________________
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
