This is true for opt-out clusters. Opt-in cluster only rely on location constraints.
Regards Le 4 avr. 2016 08:46, "Ulrich Windl" <[email protected]> a écrit : > 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 <[email protected]> schrieb am 02.04.2016 um 10:28 in > Nachricht > <[email protected]>: > > Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> 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: [email protected] > > 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: [email protected] > 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: [email protected] 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
