I...uh...don't really know what to say. Is that a bug, in that it is not
reasonable in any way? Or is it a feature, in that it can't be fixed in a
backwards compatible way?
Having literally just implemented some logic to handle these quirks today,
I would certainly hope that any changes to this are introduced through new
syntax. :-)
What I found was that the logical chaining behaviour can be implemented
using single-resource sets:
colocation colo inf: (A) (B) (C D) (E) (F)
# A -> B -> (C, D) -> E -> F
It's a bit ugly, but if (as in my situation) the config is automatically
generated, it's workable.
It turns out that:
colocation colo inf: A B
and:
colocation colo inf: (A) (B)
effectively do the same thing, but in different ways. That is, *only* the
"two sequential resources" case differs from all the others. I suspect
that's due to it generating just the single CIB XML element:
<rsc_colocation id="colo" rsc="A" with-rsc="B" score="INFINITY" />
rather than a <rsc_colocation> containing a series of <resource_set>
elements.
- Michael
_______________________________________________
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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
