24.10.2016 14:22, Nikhil Utane wrote:
I had set resource utilization to 1. Even then it scheduled 2 resources.
Doesn't it honor utilization resources if it doesn't find a free node?
To make utilization work you need to set both:
* node overall capacity (per-node utilization attribute)
* capacit
I had set resource utilization to 1. Even then it scheduled 2 resources.
Doesn't it honor utilization resources if it doesn't find a free node?
-Nikhil
On Mon, Oct 24, 2016 at 4:43 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov
wrote:
> 24.10.2016 14:04, Nikhil Utane wrote:
>
>> That is what happened here :(.
>> When
24.10.2016 14:04, Nikhil Utane wrote:
That is what happened here :(.
When 2 nodes went down, two resources got scheduled on single node.
Isn't there any way to stop this from happening. Colocation constraint
is not helping.
If it is ok to have some instances not running in such outage cases, yo
That is what happened here :(.
When 2 nodes went down, two resources got scheduled on single node.
Isn't there any way to stop this from happening. Colocation constraint is
not helping.
-Regards
Nikhil
On Sat, Oct 22, 2016 at 12:57 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov
wrote:
> 21.10.2016 19:34, Andrei Borzen
21.10.2016 19:34, Andrei Borzenkov wrote:
14.10.2016 10:39, Vladislav Bogdanov пишет:
use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are
not moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes
have the same allocation score for the resource. So, after the
simulta
14.10.2016 10:39, Vladislav Bogdanov пишет:
>
> use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are
> not moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes
> have the same allocation score for the resource. So, after the
> simultaneus outage of two nodes in a 5-nod
On 10/17/2016 11:29 PM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Thanks Ken.
> I will give it a shot.
>
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html
> On this thread, if I interpret it correctly, his problem was solved when
> he swapped the anti-location constraint
>
> From (mapping to
Thanks Ken.
I will give it a shot.
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html
On this thread, if I interpret it correctly, his problem was solved when he
swapped the anti-location constraint
>From (mapping to my example)
cu_2 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)
cu_3 with cu_4
On 10/17/2016 09:55 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> I see these prints.
>
> pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_4: Rolling back scores from cu_3
> pengine:debug: native_assign_node:Assigning Redun_CU4_Wb30 to cu_4
> pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_3: Rolling back scores from cu_2
I see these prints.
pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights: cu_4: Rolling back scores from cu_3
pengine:debug: native_assign_node: Assigning Redun_CU4_Wb30 to cu_4
pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights: cu_3: Rolling back scores from cu_2
pengine:debug: native_assign_node: Assigning Redund_CU
This is driving me insane.
This is how the resources were started. Redund_CU1_WB30 was the DC which I
rebooted.
cu_4 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Started Redund_CU1_WB30
cu_2 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Started Redund_CU5_WB30
cu_3 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Started Redun_CU4_Wb30
On 10/14/2016 06:56 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Thank you for the responses so far.
> I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in
> resource movement that I am analyzing.
>
> Thinking further on this, why doesn't "/a not with b" does not imply "b
> not with a"?/
>
I feel the behavior has become worse after adding reverse co-location
constraint.
I started with this. And it was all I wanted it to be.
cu_5 <-> Redund_CU1_WB30
cu_4 <-> Redund_CU2_WB30
cu_3 <-> Redund_CU3_WB30
cu_2 <-> Redund_CU5_WB30
However for some reason pacemaker decided to move cu_2 from R
Hi,
Thank you for the responses so far.
I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in
resource movement that I am analyzing.
Thinking further on this, why doesn't "*a not with b" does not imply "b not
with a"?*
Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"?
Can
On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl
wrote:
Nikhil Utane schrieb am 13.10.2016 um
>16:43 in
>Nachricht
>:
>> Ulrich,
>>
>> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6
>> constraints, right?
>>
>> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6]
>> [1,
>>> Nikhil Utane schrieb am 13.10.2016 um 16:43 in
Nachricht
:
> Ulrich,
>
> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6
> constraints, right?
>
> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6]
> [1,] "A" "A" "A""B" "B""C"
> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "C" "D""D"
16 matches
Mail list logo
