On Jun 15, 2010, at 5:26 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 04:44:31PM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >> >> On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:55 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 03:41:17PM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:36 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:45:37AM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Hi, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You wanted to say "sequential == false"? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is sequential == false: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> This is sequential == true: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> colocation together inf: dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 dummy4 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Dejan >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I guess colocation syntax needs to be expanded to allow something like >>>>>> this >>>>>> >>>>>> colocation only-one -inf: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true") >>>>>> >>>>>> colocation together 5000: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true") >>>>> >>>>> How's this different from a regular constraint? >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Because it does not create a resource set with two resources >>>> and if you put it in parentheses, it creates set with sequential="false" >>> >>> What I meant was what is the difference between these two: >>> >>> <rsc_colocation id="c1" rsc="p1" score="500" with-rsc="p2"/> >>> >>> <rsc_colocation id="c1" score="500"> >>> <resource_set id="c1-0"> >>> <resource_ref id="p1"/> >>> <resource_ref id="p2"/> >>> </resource_set> >>> </rsc_colocation> >>> >> >> I take it there is no difference for the positive score, >> it just looks like former looks like there is a dependency of p1 on p2. >> >> But there is a definite difference with a negative score, >> >> if you have something like this >> >> colocation only-one -inf: dummy1 dummy2 >> >> so you don't want to have them to run on the same host ever. > >> and the host with dummy2 goes down. >> Instead of just not starting dummy2 anywhere it will kill dummy1 too and >> start dummy2 on the surviving host. >> That's an outage and not what I wanted to achieve. > > Obviously that's not "ever", it's only if there's more than one > node on which they can run. If you put > > colocation only-one -10: dummy1 dummy2 > > instead, you should get what you wanted. >
That the issue, I need "ever", and that's what Andrew's patch is going to fix. 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
