Hi! Actually form my SLES11 SP[1-4] experience, the cluster always distributes resources across all available nodes, and only if don't want that, I'll have to add constraints. I wonder why that does not seem to work for you.
Regards, Ulrich >>> Ferenc Wágner <wf...@niif.hu> schrieb am 02.04.2016 um 10:28 in Nachricht <87egao9zyc....@lant.ki.iif.hu>: > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> writes: > >> On 03/30/2016 08:37 PM, Ferenc Wágner wrote: >> >>> I've got a couple of resources (A, B, C, D, ... more than cluster nodes) >>> that I want to spread out to different nodes as much as possible. They >>> are all the same, there's no distinguished one amongst them. I tried >>> >>> <rsc_colocation id="cl-test-spread" score="-50"> >>> <resource_set id="cl-test-spread-set" sequential="false"> >>> <resource_ref id="A"/> >>> <resource_ref id="B"/> >>> <resource_ref id="C"/> >>> <resource_ref id="D"/> >>> </resource_set> >>> <resource_set id-ref="cl-test-spread-set"/> >>> </rsc_colocation> >>> >>> But crm_simulate did not finish with the above in the CIB. >>> What's a good way to get this working? >> >> Per the docs, "A colocated set with sequential=false makes sense only if >> there is another set in the constraint. Otherwise, the constraint has no >> effect." Using sequential=false would allow another set to depend on all >> these resources, without them depending on each other. > > That was the very idea behind the above colocation constraint: it > contains the same group twice. Yeah, it's somewhat contrived, but I had > no other idea with any chance of success. And this one failed as well. > >> I haven't actually tried resource sets with negative scores, so I'm not >> sure what happens there. With sequential=true, I'd guess that each >> resource would avoid the resource listed before it, but not necessarily >> any of the others. > > Probably, but that isn't what I'm after. > >> By default, pacemaker does spread things out as evenly as possible, so I >> don't think anything special is needed. > > Yes, but only on the scale of all resources. And I've also got a > hundred independent ones, which wash out this global spreading effect if > you consider only a select handful. > >> If you want more control over the assignment, you can look into >> placement strategies: > > We use balanced placement to account for the different memory > requirements of the various resources globally. It would be possible to > introduce a new, artifical utilization "dimension" for each resource > group we want to spread independently, but this doesn't sound very > compelling. For sets of two resources, a simple negative colocation > constraint works very well; it'd be a pity if it wasn't possible to > extend this concept to larger sets. > -- > Thanks, > Feri > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org > http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org