On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 15:48 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote: > > > > Andrei Borzenkov <arvidj...@gmail.com> schrieb am 06.08.2021 um > > > > 15:14 in > Nachricht > <caa91j0v2zezd75zay+2qvepdbyaxucrswdgc3opgopkxbhf...@mail.gmail.com>: > > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 3:47 PM Ulrich Windl > > <ulrich.wi...@rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > Antony Stone <antony.st...@ha.open.source.it> schrieb am > > > > > > 06.08.2021 um > > > 14:41 in > > > Nachricht <202108061441.59936.antony.st...@ha.open.source.it>: > > > ... > > > > location pref_A GroupA rule ‑inf: site ne cityA > > > > location pref_B GroupB rule ‑inf: site ne cityB > > > > > > I'm wondering whether the first is equivalentto > > > location pref_A GroupA rule inf: site eq cityA > > > > > > > No, it is not. The original constraint prohibits running resources > > anywhere except cityA even if cityA is not available; your version > > allows it if cityA is not available. > > ?? If a resource must run on "cityA" and cityA is unavailable, then > will it > run elsewhere?
-inf = must not +inf != must -- Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> _______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
