On Wed, Feb 15, 2017 at 09:21:50AM -0600, Ken Gaillot wrote:
> On 02/15/2017 03:57 AM, he.hailo...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> > I just tried using colocation, it dosen't work.
> >
> >
> > I failed the node paas-controller-3, but sdclient_vip didn't get moved:
>
> The colocation would work, but the prob
On 02/15/2017 03:57 AM, he.hailo...@zte.com.cn wrote:
> I just tried using colocation, it dosen't work.
>
>
> I failed the node paas-controller-3, but sdclient_vip didn't get moved:
The colocation would work, but the problem you're having with router and
apigateway is preventing it from getting
I just tried using colocation, it dosen't work.
I failed the node paas-controller-3, but sdclient_vip didn't get moved:
Online: [ paas-controller-1 paas-controller-2 paas-controller-3 ]
router_vip (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr2): Started paas-controller-1
sdclient_vip (ocf::hea
Is there a reason not to use a colocation constraint instead? If X_vipis
colocated with X, it will be moved if X fails.
[hhl]: the movement should take place as well if X stopped (the start is
on-going). I don't know if the colocation would satisfy this requirement.
I don't see any reason in your