On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Gao,Yan <y...@novell.com> wrote:
> On 07/15/11 10:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Gao,Yan <y...@novell.com> wrote:
>>> Hi,
>>> Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about it...
>>>
>>> On 07/14/11 12:21, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>> This loop looks wrong
>>>>
>>>> + for(gIter2 = resource1->rsc_cons; gIter2 != NULL; gIter2 =
>>>> gIter2->next) {
>>>>
>>>> You're very dependant on the number and order of constraints because
>>>> of the way resource1_weight is being updated.
>>>> AFAICS, this only works if there is a single non INFINITY constraint.
>>> Indeed. We can hardly tell what exactly the resources' scores are before
>>> allocating resources. The scores would be merged/updated during
>>> allocating. That means that we can hardly tell what the best allocating
>>> order is before allocating resources. What "sort_rsc_process_order()"
>>> does is just to predict a relatively ideal order.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'll take a look at the before and after results tomorrow and see if
>>>> there might be a better way to achieve the same results.
>>> That would be great. Thanks!
>>>
>>
>> Is there a bug I can reference in the commit message?
> http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2613
> http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2619
Excellent, both are now fixed. I'll commit on Monday.
Btw, you should join on irc - especially since we're in almost the
same TZ now :-)
_______________________________________________
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
