> On 24 Feb 2015, at 4:35 pm, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: > > 24.02.2015 01:58, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >>> On 21 Jan 2015, at 5:08 pm, Vladislav Bogdanov <bub...@hoster-ok.com> wrote: >>> >>> 21.01.2015 03:51, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> 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? >>> >>> There are three pe-inputs for the node start. >>> First one starts fence device for the other node, dlm+clvm+gfs and drbd on >>> the online-back node. >>> Second one tries to start/promote/move everything else until it is >>> interrupted (by the drbd RA?). >>> Third one finishes that attempt. >> >> I've lost all context on this and I don't seem to be able to reconstruct it >> :) >> Which part of the above is the problem? > > ;) > > In this thread the point is: > * all resources have the same default priority > * there are several triples of resources which are grouped by > order/colocation constraints. Let's call them "triples". > * There is globally-unique cluster-ip clone with clone-max=2 clone-node-max=2 > stickiness=0, which is allocated after all "triples" (it goes after them in > CIB). > * If number of "triples" is odd, then in two-node cluster both cluster-ip > instances are allocated to the same node. >
Very clear, thankyou :-) Was there a crm_report associated with this somewhere? Its not showing up in this thread. _______________________________________________ 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
