> On 20 Jan 2015, at 4:13 pm, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > > 20.01.2015 02:47, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >>> On 17 Jan 2015, at 1:25 am, Vladislav Bogdanov >>> <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Trying to reproduce problem with early stop of globally-unique >>> clone instances during move to another node I found one more >>> "interesting" problem. >>> >>> Due to the different order of resources in the CIB and extensive >>> use of constraints between other resources (odd number of resources >>> cluster-wide) two CLUSTERIP instances are always allocated to the >>> same node in the new testing cluster. >> >> Ah, so this is why broker-vips:1 was moving. > > That are two different 2-node clusters with different order of resources. > In the first one broker-vips go after even number of resources, and one > instance wants to return to a "mother-node" after it is brought back online, > thus broker-vips:1 is moving. > > In the second one, broker-vips go after odd number of resources (actually > three more resources are allocated to one node due to constraints) and both > boker-vips go to another node. > >> >>> >>> What would be the best/preferred way to make them run on different >>> nodes by default? >> >> By default they will. I'm assuming its the constraints that are >> preventing this. > > I only see that they are allocated similar to any other resources.
Are they allocated in stages though? Ie. Was there a point at which the "mother-node" was available but constraints prevented broker-vips:1 running there? > >> >> Getting them to auto-rebalance is the harder problem > > I see. Should it be possible to solve it without priority or utilization use? "it" meaning auto-rebalancing or your original issue? > >> >>> >>> I see following options: >>> * Raise priority of globally-unique clone so its instances are > >> always allocated first of all. >>> * Use utilization attributes (with high values for nodes and low values >>> for cluster resources). > >> * Anything else? >>> >>> If I configure virtual IPs one-by-one (without clone), I can add a >>> colocation constraint with negative score between them. I do not >>> see a way to scale that setup well though (5-10 IPs). So, what >>> would be the best option to achieve the same with globally-unique >>> cloned resource? May be there should be some internal >>> preference/colocation not to place them together (like default >>> stickiness=1 for clones)? Or even allow special negative colocation >>> constraint and the same resource in both 'what' and 'with' >>> (colocation col1 -1: clone clone)? >>> >>> Best, Vladislav >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ 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 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ 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 >> > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
