Hi Andrew, Thank you for comments.
> Oh! > I somehow failed to recognise that you were using 1.0 > There is a reasonable chance that 1.1 behaves better in this regard. > > I also notice, now, that the resources are still in a group - deleting the > ordering constraint achieves nothing if the resources are still in a group. > Just define the resources and the colocation set, no group. All right! We use "ordered" of group in Pacemaker1.0. In Pacemaker1.1, I believe that resourece_set moves in the future in substitution for ordered in group. Many Thanks! Hideo Yamauchi. _______________________________________________ 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
