Hi Andrew, By the method that you showed, the problem was solved.
Thank you. Hideo Yamauchi. --- [email protected] wrote: > Hi Andrew, > > Thank you for comment. > > > > You would be better off with a constraint like example 9.3 which will > > > exclude any unconnected node and leave the previous location scores > > > unchanged: > > > > > > \xA0 > > > \xA0http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/ch09s03s03s02.html#id2079508 > > I try it by the method that you showed at once. > > Best Regards, > Hideo Yamauchi. > > --- Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Minor correction to the reply > > > > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 12:32 PM, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 2009/12/22 \xA0<[email protected]>: > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> We constituted the complicated cluster of three nodes.(2ACT+1STB) > > >> > > >> We built a cluster by the next combination. > > >> > > >> \xA0* corosync-1.1.2 > > >> \xA0* Reusable-Cluster-Components-fa44a169d55f > > >> \xA0* Cluster-Resource-Agents-6f02f8ad7fd4 > > >> \xA0* Pacemaker-1-0-d990c453b999 > > >> > > >> The resource of group02-1 hoped that it started in an active node.(srv01) > > >> But, against rsc_location which I appointed, the resource is started in > > >> a standby > > node.(srv03) > > >> > > >> ------ output crm_mon ------------------------- > > >> \xA0Resource Group: UMgroup01 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 UmDummy01 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy01): \xA0 \xA0 \xA0 Started > > >> srv01 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 UmDummy02 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 UmIPaddr \xA0 (ocf::heartbeat:IPaddr): \xA0 \xA0 \xA0 > > >> \xA0Started srv01 > > >> \xA0Resource Group: group02-1 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Dummy01-1 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Dummy01-2 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03 > > >> \xA0Resource Group: group02-2 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Dummy02-1 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Dummy02-2 \xA0(ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02 > > >> \xA0Resource Group: grpStonith1 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 prmStonithN1-1 \xA0 \xA0 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv03 > > >> \xA0Resource Group: grpStonith2 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 prmStonithN2-1 \xA0 \xA0 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv01 > > >> \xA0Resource Group: grpStonith3 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 prmStonithN3-1 \xA0 \xA0 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv02 > > >> \xA0Clone Set: clnUMgroup01 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Started: [ srv01 srv03 ] > > >> \xA0Clone Set: clnPingd > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 ] > > >> \xA0Clone Set: clnPingd2 > > >> \xA0 \xA0 Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 ] > > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> ------ cib.xml group02-1 rsc_location -------------- > > >> \xA0 \xA0 \xA0<rsc_location id="grp02-1-1-location" rsc="group02-1" > > >> node="srv01" score="200"/> > > >> \xA0 \xA0 \xA0<rsc_location id="grp02-1-2-location" rsc="group02-1" > > >> node="srv03" score="100"/> > > >> \xA0 \xA0 \xA0<rsc_location id="grp02-1-3-location" rsc="group02-1" > > >> node="srv02" score="-INFINITY"/> > > >> ---------------------------------------------------- > > >> > > >> Will my cib.xml be a mistake? > > >> Or will it be a bug? > > > > > > Your location constraints are working (run ptest on pe-input-4.bz2 and > > > you'll see that we originally intend to start the group on srv01). > > > > > > The problem is that their preference is being saturated by these two > > > colocation constraints: > > > \xA0 \xA0 \xA0<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-1" rsc="group02-1" > > > with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/> > > > \xA0 \xA0 \xA0<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-2" rsc="group02-1" > > > with-rsc="clnPingd2" score="INFINITY"/> > > > > > > Run ptest -s with pe-input-4.bz2 and you'll see the scores for > > > > Sorry, that should have been pe-input-5.bz2 > > > > > Dummy01-1 are now: > > > native_color: Dummy01-1 allocation score on srv01: 1000000 > > > native_color: Dummy01-1 allocation score on srv02: -1000000 > > > native_color: Dummy01-1 allocation score on srv03: 1000000 > > > > > > In the PE, 1000000 == INFINITY > > > > > > You would be better off with a constraint like example 9.3 which will > > > exclude any unconnected node and leave the previous location scores > > > unchanged: > > > > > > \xA0 > > > \xA0http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.0/html/Pacemaker_Explained/ch09s03s03s02.html#id2079508 > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Pacemaker mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list > [email protected] > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker >
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list [email protected] http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
