>>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com> schrieb am 17.10.2016 um 16:46 in
Nachricht
<CAGNWmJUfVS1bcSfSG4=rmu5u9ckc4hyuge3psakrnwqsbi1...@mail.gmail.com>:
> This is driving me insane.

Why don't you try the utilization approach?

> 
> 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
> 
> Since the standby node was not UP. I was expecting resource cu_4 to be
> waiting to be scheduled.
> But then it re-arranged everything as below.
>  cu_4 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Started Redun_CU4_Wb30
>  cu_2 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Stopped
>  cu_3 (ocf::redundancy:RedundancyRA): Started Redund_CU5_WB30
> 
> There is not much information available in the logs on new DC. It just
> shows what it has decided to do but nothing to suggest why it did it that
> way.
> 
> notice: Start   cu_4 (Redun_CU4_Wb30)
> notice: Stop    cu_2 (Redund_CU5_WB30)
> notice: Move    cu_3 (Started Redun_CU4_Wb30 -> Redund_CU5_WB30)
> 
> I have default stickiness set to 100 which is higher than any score that I
> have configured.
> I have migration_threshold set to 1. Should I bump that up instead?
> 
> -Thanks
> Nikhil
> 
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
>> 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"?/
>> > Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"?
>> >
>> > Can someone confirm that colocation is required to be configured both
>> ways?
>>
>> The anti-colocation should only be defined one-way. Otherwise, you get a
>> dependency loop (as seen in logs you showed elsewhere).
>>
>> The one-way constraint is enough to keep the resources apart. However,
>> the question is whether the cluster might move resources around
>> unnecessarily.
>>
>> For example, "A not with B" means that the cluster will place B first,
>> then place A somewhere else. So, if B's node fails, can the cluster
>> decide that A's node is now the best place for B, and move A to a free
>> node, rather than simply start B on the free node?
>>
>> The cluster does take dependencies into account when placing a resource,
>> so I would hope that wouldn't happen. But I'm not sure. Having some
>> stickiness might help, so that A has some preference against moving.
>>
>> > -Thanks
>> > Nikhil
>> >
>> > /
>> > /
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov
>> > <bub...@hoster-ok.com <mailto:bub...@hoster-ok.com>> wrote:
>> >
>> >     On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl
>> >     <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de 
>> >     <mailto:ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de>> wrote:
>> >     >>>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com 
>> >     <mailto:nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com>> schrieb am 13.10.2016 um
>> >     >16:43 in
>> >     >Nachricht
>> >     ><cagnwmjubpucnbgxrohkhsbq0lxovwslfpkupg1r8gjqrfqm...@mail.gmail.com 
>> >     <mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@
>> mail.gmail.com>>:
>> >     >> 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"
>> >     >
>> >     >Sorry for my confusion. As Andrei Borzenkovsaid in
>> >     ><caa91j0w+epahflg9u6vx_x8lgfkf9rp55g3nocy4ozna9bb...@mail.gmail.com 
>> >     <mailto:CAA91j0W%2BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%
>> 2...@mail.gmail.com>>
>> >     >you probably have to add (A, B) _and_ (B, A)! Thinking about it, I
>> >     >wonder whether an easier solution would be using "utilization": If
>> >     >every node has one token to give, and every resource needs on
>> token, no
>> >     >two resources will run on one node. Sounds like an easier solution
>> to
>> >     >me.
>> >     >
>> >     >Regards,
>> >     >Ulrich
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >>
>> >     >> I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as
>> >     >> -infinity, then the same applies for R2 with R1 score as -infinity
>> >     >(don't
>> >     >> have to configure it explicitly).
>> >     >> I am not having a problem of multiple resources getting schedule
>> on
>> >     >the
>> >     >> same node. Rather, one working resource is unnecessarily getting
>> >     >relocated.
>> >     >>
>> >     >> -Thanks
>> >     >> Nikhil
>> >     >>
>> >     >>
>> >     >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ulrich Windl <
>> >     >> ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de 
>> >     <mailto:ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de>> wrote:
>> >     >>
>> >     >>> Hi!
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of
>> your
>> >     >5
>> >     >>> resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R):
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>      [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
>> >     >>> [1,] "A"  "A"  "A"  "A"  "B"  "B"  "B"  "C"  "C"  "D"
>> >     >>> [2,] "B"  "C"  "D"  "E"  "C"  "D"  "E"  "D"  "E"  "E"
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> Ulrich
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> >>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com 
>> >     <mailto:nikhil.subscri...@gmail.com>> schrieb am 13.10.2016
>> >     >um
>> >     >>> 15:59 in
>> >     >>> Nachricht
>> >     >>>
>> >     ><cagnwmjw0cwmr3bvr3l9xzcacjuzyczqbzezuzpajxi+pn7o...@mail.gmail.com 
>> >     <mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%2BPn7Oj_
>> a...@mail.gmail.com>>:
>> >     >>> > Hi,
>> >     >>> >
>> >     >>> > I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.
>> >     >>> > I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be
>> >     >>> co-located.
>> >     >>> > I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was
>> expecting
>> >     >the
>> >     >>> > resource on the failed node would be migrated to the 5th
>> waiting
>> >     >node
>> >     >>> (that
>> >     >>> > is not running any resource).
>> >     >>> > However what happened was the failed node resource was started
>> on
>> >     >another
>> >     >>> > active node (after stopping it's existing resource) and that
>> >     >node's
>> >     >>> > resource was moved to the waiting node.
>> >     >>> >
>> >     >>> > What could I be doing wrong?
>> >     >>> >
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-have-watchdog" value="true"
>> >     >>> > name="have-watchdog"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-dc-version"
>> >     >value="1.1.14-5a6cdd1"
>> >     >>> > name="dc-version"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-cluster-infrastructure"
>> >     >>> value="corosync"
>> >     >>> > name="cluster-infrastructure"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-stonith-enabled"
>> value="false"
>> >     >>> > name="stonith-enabled"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-no-quorum-policy"
>> value="ignore"
>> >     >>> > name="no-quorum-policy"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-default-action-timeout"
>> >     >value="240"
>> >     >>> > name="default-action-timeout"/>
>> >     >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-symmetric-cluster"
>> value="false"
>> >     >>> > name="symmetric-cluster"/>
>> >     >>> >
>> >     >>> > # pcs constraint
>> >     >>> > Location Constraints:
>> >     >>> >   Resource: cu_2
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >   Resource: cu_3
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >   Resource: cu_4
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >   Resource: cu_5
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
>> >     >>> > Ordering Constraints:
>> >     >>> > Colocation Constraints:
>> >     >>> >   cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >   cu_4 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >   cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >   cu_5 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >   cu_5 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >   cu_5 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)
>> >     >>> >
>> >     >>> > -Thanks
>> >     >>> > Nikhil
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> _______________________________________________
>> >     >>> Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 
>> >     <mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org>
>> >     >>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
>> >     <http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >     >>>
>> >     >>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
>> >     >>> Getting started:
>> >     >http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
>> >     <http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf>
>> >     >>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 
>> >     >>>
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >
>> >     >_______________________________________________
>> >     >Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org 
>> >     <mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org>
>> >     >http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users 
>> >     <http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
>> >     >
>> >     >Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org 
>> >     >Getting started:
>> >     >http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf 
>> >     <http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf>
>> >     >Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org 
>> >
>> >     Hi,
>> >
>> >     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-node cluster,
>> >     it may appear that one node runs two resources and two recovered
>> >     nodes run nothing.
>> >
>> >     Original 'utilization' strategy only limits resource placement, it
>> >     is not considered when choosing a node for a resource.
>> >
>> >     Vladislav
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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

Reply via email to