>>> Ken Gaillot schrieb am 01.02.2021 um 17:07 in
Nachricht
<74ab971aa8450a45099f27ab738fae911c7c7b8d.ca...@redhat.com>:
> That's a new one to me. I'm shocked that works ... I'd expect it to be
> detected as a colocation loop and ignored.
I'd also think of it as (an ugly) work-around instead of
>>> damiano giuliani schrieb am 28.01.2021 um
17:42
in Nachricht
:
> Hi Ulrich, thanks for the answer,
> as Ken explained me, there isnt any way to prevent earlier members from
> running
> if a later member has no available node,
> if no node is available for the failed member, then it will just
