On Jun 16, 2010, at 2:55 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 9:41 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > >> colocation not-together -inf: d1 d2 d3 > > I think there is a problem with this syntax, particularly for +inf. > > Consider: > colocation together1 inf: d1 d2 > > This means d1 must run where d2 is. > > But if I add d3: > colocation together1 inf: d1 d2 d3 > > Now the original constraint is reversed and d2 must run where d1 is > (think of how groups work). > (Unless you're modifying the order). > > I think we need: > no brackets: exactly 2 resources must be specified > () brackets: a non-sequential set > [] brackets: a sequential set > >
Would something like this be a legitimate syntax then? colocation together-but-do-not-die 500: [ d1 d2 d3 ] anchor To combine different types in on constraint, basically? The reason I am asking, I don't think it's possible to do something like this now, isn't it? colocation together1 500: d1 d2 d3 colocation together2 500: d4 d5 d6 colocation together0 inf: together2 together1 Thanks, 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
