On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:14 AM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On Jun 15, 2010, at 7:50 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 1:38 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 4:57 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Kurz <andreas.k...@linbit.com> >>>>> wrote: >>>>>> On Tuesday 15 June 2010 08:40:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote: >>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchep...@gmail.com> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >>>>>>>>> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me" >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andrew closed this bug >>>>>>>> (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as >>>>>>>> resolved, but I respectfully disagree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I will try to explain a problem again in this list. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same >>>>>>>> node. >>>>>>>> They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be >>>>>>>> stopped. You would do this by using a resource set, like this: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>>>>>> primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>>>>>> primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy >>>>>>>> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I >>>>>>>> attached hb_report to the case to prove it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have >>>>>>>> sequential="false" for the colocation set." But sequential="false" >>>>>>>> means >>>>>>>> doesn't matter what order do they start. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> No. Thats not what it means. >>>>>>> And I believe I should know. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It means that the members of the set are NOT collocated with each >>>>>>> other, only with any preceding set. >>>>>> >>>>>> Just for clarification: >>>>>> >>>>>> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 >>>>>> >>>>>> .... is a shortcut for: >>>>>> >>>>>> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy1 >>>>>> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy2 >>>>>> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy3 >>>>>> >>>>>> ... is that correct? >>>>> >>>>> Only if sequential != false. >>>>> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> To pick up Vadym's Question: >>>>>> >>>>>> * what would be the correct syntax to say >>>>>> "run-together-but-dont-care-if-one- >>>>>> dies-or-is-not-runable"? >>>>> >>>>> Choose a score < inf, just like regular colocation constraints. >>>> >>>> Ah, ok, thanks, I guess in my mind anything less then inf was "advisory". >>> >>> They are. >>> >>> Advisory is the only way to deal with the >>> "but-dont-care-if-one-dies-or-is-not-runable" part. >>> >>>> As long as I keep it above any resource-stickiness it should be in fact >>>> mandatory, right? >>>> Or something else needs to be taken to consideration? >> >> what about this part? what do I need to do to prevent them from running on >> different nodes for sure? > > You can't have it both ways. > Either they have to run on the same node or they can remain active > when one or more die. > > Although you could do: > > d1 ( d2 d3 d4 ) > > That would almost get what you want, unless d1 dies.
I guess I would have to keep the most significant as an anchor, I can leave with it. Unfortunately, as far as I understand, there is no way do define this in shell config now, because shell adds sequential=false when it sees (). > >> >> >>>> >>>> On a side note, I was trying to figure out how to make a set from two >>>> resources, so I just added a proper xml and checked what crm shell say >>>> about it. And it shows it like this: >>>> >>>> colocation together 5000: _rsc_set_ dummy1 dummy2 >>> >>> Strange. Dejan? >>> >>>> >>>> Who knew? I didn't see it anywhere in documentation. >>>> >>>> Anyway, just so I get it right, what would be the opposite constraint >>>> (which is what this thread started from) >>>> If I want to have same dummy1, dummy2, dummy3 resources, but I don't want >>>> any of them ever to run simultaneously on the same host. What wold be the >>>> proper anti-colocation constraint for this configuration? >>> >>> Score = -inf, plus the patch, plus sequential = true (or unset). >>> Not sure how that looks in shell syntax though. >> >> My guess is for two resources it's >> colocation onlyone -inf: _rsc_set_ dummy1 dummy2 > > I certainly hope not. > >> and a patch. Would you include it in 1.0.9, by any chance? > > If it lands in the next few days. > That reminds me of an old joke. The bus driver is looking at the girl running to the bus stop and thinking: "Would she make it on time?" :) Vadym _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
