Hi Andrew,
> I've been extremely busy.
> Sometimes I defer more complex questions until I have time to give
> them my full attention.
I understand that you are busy.
Thank you for comment.
> I don't really understand the question here.
Sorry..
I made a mistake in the link of the former problem.
I explain a problem sequentially once again.
We constituted the next cluster.
Online: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
Resource Group: UMgroup01
UmVIPcheck (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
UmIPaddr (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
UmDummy01 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
UmDummy02 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-1
prmExPostgreSQLDB1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
prmFsPostgreSQLDB1-1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
prmFsPostgreSQLDB1-2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
prmFsPostgreSQLDB1-3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
prmIpPostgreSQLDB1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
prmApPostgreSQLDB1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-2
prmExPostgreSQLDB2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
prmFsPostgreSQLDB2-1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
prmFsPostgreSQLDB2-2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
prmFsPostgreSQLDB2-3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
prmIpPostgreSQLDB2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
prmApPostgreSQLDB2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-3
prmExPostgreSQLDB3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
prmFsPostgreSQLDB3-1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
prmFsPostgreSQLDB3-2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
prmFsPostgreSQLDB3-3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
prmIpPostgreSQLDB3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
prmApPostgreSQLDB3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
Resource Group: grpStonith1
prmStonithN1 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv04
Resource Group: grpStonith2
prmStonithN2 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv01
Resource Group: grpStonith3
prmStonithN3 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv02
Resource Group: grpStonith4
prmStonithN4 (stonith:external/ssh): Started srv03
Clone Set: clnUMgroup01
Started: [ srv01 srv04 ]
Clone Set: clnPingd
Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
Clone Set: clnDiskd1
Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
Clone Set: clnG3dummy1
Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
Clone Set: clnG3dummy2
Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
We encountered the problem that early resource placement did not obey location
by this constitution.
* I asked next question before...
http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/60342
This was a mistake of our setting.
(snip)
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-2" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnPingd2" score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-3" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnUMgroup01"
score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-1" rsc="group02-1"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-2" rsc="group02-1"
with-rsc="clnPingd2"
score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-2-1" rsc="group02-2"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-2-2" rsc="group02-2"
with-rsc="clnPingd2"
score="INFINITY"/>
(snip)
And we set 1000 in colocation.
(snip)
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-2" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnPingd2" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-3" rsc="UMgroup01"
with-rsc="clnUMgroup01" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-1" rsc="group02-1"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-1-2" rsc="group02-1"
with-rsc="clnPingd2" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-2-1" rsc="group02-2"
with-rsc="clnPingd" score="1000"/>
<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation02-2-2" rsc="group02-2"
with-rsc="clnPingd2" score="1000"/>
(snip)
Because we set 1000 in colocation, the resource was arranged in a node
definitely.
We confirmed movement after the trouble of clnPingd by cluster constitution of
this setting more.
(The detailed procedure is an email of the beginnings of this matter.)
But clnPingd does not start in srv01, but UMgroup01 starts after this.
* Because there was colocation limitation, we did not expect start of
UMgroup01.
Your answer to solve this problem was to set INFINITY in colocation.
> Only if you change:
> <rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
> with-rsc="clnPingd" score="1000"/>
>
> to
> <rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
> with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/>
However, the early resource placement that we solved becomes invalid when I set
colocation in
INFINITY.
By our cluster constitution, can you satisfy two next demands?
1)The resource placement of a right early cluster.
2)The start control of the resource of the combination by the colocation
limitation.
Is there setting of cib.xml to realize a demand?
#I am not good at English.
#Give me comment if you do not understand contents of my comment.
Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.
--- Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote:
> 2010/3/17 <renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp>:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> > Please give my question an answer.
>
> I've been extremely busy.
> Sometimes I defer more complex questions until I have time to give
> them my full attention.
>
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamauchi.
> >
> > --- renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> Thank you for comment.
> >>
> >> I asked next question before.
> >>
> >> \xA0 http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/linuxha/pacemaker/61484
> >>
> >> I guessed from your this answer.
> >> When I use cib.xml of the answer of before, is the limitation that it
> >> combined a start of
> >> clnPingd
> >> with after a node rebooted unrealizable?
>
> I don't really understand the question here.
>
> >>
> >> Limitation of before :
> >> > \xA0<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
> >> > with-rsc="clnPingd" score="1000"/>
> >>
> >> This limitation :
> >> > \xA0<rsc_colocation id="rsc_colocation01-1" rsc="UMgroup01"
> >> > with-rsc="clnPingd" score="INFINITY"/>
> >>
> >> Is there a description method of cib.xml letting both limitation function
> >> at the same time?
>
> What would that achieve?
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list
> Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list
Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
