Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > Yes, because the -INFINITY + INFINITY = -INFINITY and therefore the > node wont be allowed to host the service. Thank you for comment. My worry was useless somehow or other. The initial placement of the resource went well, too. By various patterns, I test some movement. Best Reg

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 3:40 PM, wrote: > Hi Andrew, > >> > Thank you for comment. >> > But, does not the problem of the next email recur when I change it in >> > INFINITY? >> > >> >  * http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/60342 >> >> No, as I previously explained: > > By an a

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for comment. > > But, does not the problem of the next email recur when I change it in > > INFINITY? > > > > * http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/60342 > > No, as I previously explained: By an answer before you, pingd moves well. However, does set

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/4/19 : > Hi Andrew, > >> >> We want to realize start in order of the next. >> >>  1) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2, clnUMgroup01 (All resources >> >> start) -> UMgroup01 start >> >>    * And the resource moves if a clone of one stops. >> >>  2) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2 (All re

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > >> We want to realize start in order of the next. > >> 1) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2, clnUMgroup01 (All resources start) > >> -> UMgroup01 start > >>* And the resource moves if a clone of one stops. > >> 2) clnPingd, clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2 (All resources start) -> >

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/4/19 : > Hi Andrew, > > Are you busy? > Please give my question an answer. > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> I ask you a question one more. >> >> Our real resource constitution is a little more complicated. >> >> We do colocati

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, Are you busy? Please give my question an answer. Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > I ask you a question one more. > > Our real resource constitution is a little more complicated. > > We do colocation of the clone(clnG3dummy1, c

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, I ask you a question one more. Our real resource constitution is a little more complicated. We do colocation of the clone(clnG3dummy1, clnG3dummy2) which does not treat the update of the attribute such as pingd. (snip)

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, Thank you for comment. > I was suggesting: > > with-rsc="clnUMgroup01" score="INFINITY"/> > > > >operation="not_defined"/> >attribute="clnPingd" operation="lt" type="integer" value="1"/> >attribute="clnPingd2" operation="not_defined"/> >attribu

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/3/19 : > Hi Andrew, > >> I've been extremely busy. >> Sometimes I defer more complex questions until I have time to give >> them my full attention. > > I understand that you are busy. > Thank you for comment. > >> I don't really understand the question here. > > Sorry.. > I made a mistake in

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > I've been extremely busy. > Sometimes I defer more complex questions until I have time to give > them my full attention. I understand that you are busy. Thank you for comment. > I don't really understand the question here. Sorry.. I made a mistake in the link of the former problem.

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/3/17 : > Hi Andrew, > > Please give my question an answer. I've been extremely busy. Sometimes I defer more complex questions until I have time to give them my full attention. > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > >> Hi Andrew, >> >> Thank you for c

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, Please give my question an answer. Best Regards, Hideo Yamauchi. --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for comment. > > I asked next question before. > > http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/61484 > > I guessed from your this answer

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, Thank you for comment. I asked next question before. http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/61484 I guessed from your this answer. When I use cib.xml of the answer of before, is the limitation that it combined a start of clnPingd with after a node rebooted unreal

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/3/9 : > Hi Andrew, > >> This is normal for constraints with scores < INFINITY. >> Anything < INFINITY is "preferable but not mandatory" > > Sorry > The method of my question was bad. > > As of STEP9, is the setting that a resource of UMgroup01 does not start > possible? Only if you chan

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

Hi Andrew, > This is normal for constraints with scores < INFINITY. > Anything < INFINITY is "preferable but not mandatory" Sorry The method of my question was bad. As of STEP9, is the setting that a resource of UMgroup01 does not start possible? I do not perform the INFINITY setting in ci

Re: [Pacemaker] Problem : By colocations limitation, the resource appointment of the combination does not become effective.

2010/3/5 : > Hi All, > > We test complicated colocation appointment. > > We did resource appointment to start by limitation of colocation together. > > But, the resource that set limitation starts when the resource that we > appointed does not start in a > certain procedure. > > We did the follow