Hi, Andrew
I know that there is the next processing in "pengine".
# cat -n pengine/utils.c
[snip]
322 /* now try to balance resources across the cluster */
323 if(node1->details->num_resources
324< node2->details->num_resources) {
325 do_crm_log_unlikely(level, "%s (%d)< %s (%d) : resources",
326 node1->details->uname,
node1->details->num_resources,
327 node2->details->uname,
node2->details->num_resources);
328 return -1;
329
330 } else if(node1->details->num_resources
331> node2->details->num_resources) {
332 do_crm_log_unlikely(level, "%s (%d)> %s (%d) : resources",
333 node1->details->uname,
node1->details->num_resources,
334 node2->details->uname,
node2->details->num_resources);
335 return 1;
336 }
This processing is a thing to give priority to a node with a little number
of the resources.
And this processing acts regardless of setting of "placement-strategy".
I understand so it.
This processing works expected at the time of next.
A turn of the trouble of resources : rsc1 -> rsc2 -> rsc3
Online: [ act1 act2 act3 sby2 sby1 ]
Full list of resources:
rsc1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
rsc2 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby2
rsc3 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
Failed actions:
rsc1_monitor_5000 (node=act1, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
rsc2_monitor_5000 (node=act2, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
rsc3_monitor_5000 (node=act3, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
However , at the time of next , I do not work as expected.(this is a
problem)
A turn of the trouble of resources : rsc3 -> rsc2 -> rsc1
Online: [ act1 act2 act3 sby2 sby1 ]
Full list of resources:
rsc1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
rsc2 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
rsc3 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
Failed actions:
rsc1_monitor_5000 (node=act1, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
rsc2_monitor_5000 (node=act2, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
rsc3_monitor_5000 (node=act3, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
This problem is improved by the correction that Yan made, but it is not
applied to "default" setting.
I want to apply this correction to "default" setting.
And I think that I want Pacemaker-1.0 to apply the same correction.
However , I want to think once again because there are the problem of group
resources reporting according to the present and the problem of colocation
which I do not yet report after including those corrections.
I attach crm_report of the problem work.
Best Regards,
Yuusuke IIDA
(2011/07/05 13:34), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Gao,Yan<y...@novell.com> wrote:
On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
Hi, Yan
An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
(2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the
"default" is somewhat intended not to be affected by any "placement
strategy" so that the behaviors of existing pengine test cases and
users' deployments remain unchanged.
I think that a function dispersed with the number of the start of the
resource has a problem at the time of "default" setting.
This problem is the Pacemaker-1.0 series, but does the same movement.
If it could be settled by this correction, I thought a correction to be
applicable in Pacemaker-1.0.
Should not this problem be revised?
This would affect dozens of existing regression tests, although most of
the changes are just the scores of clone instances, which are due to
different resource allocating orders. Given 1.0 is in such a maintenance
state, I'm not sure we should do that for 1.0.
Andrew, what do you think about it? Perhaps we should fix the
resource-number-balancing for "default" strategy in 1.1 at least?
I think for 1.1 we can do something, I'd just like to understand the
the implications of the patch.
It would help if there was a testcase that illustrated the negative
behaviour.
Is it necessary that both parts of the old if-block are always run?
For "utilization" strategy, load-balancing is still done based on the
number of resources allocated to a node. That might be a choice.
When I do not set capacity by "utilization" setting in Pacemaker-1.1 ,
expected movement is possible!
Best Regards,
Yuusuke IIDA
Regards,
Yan
--
Gao,Yan<y...@novell.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.
_______________________________________________
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
--
----------------------------------------
METRO SYSTEMS CO., LTD
Yuusuke Iida
Mail: iiday...@intellilink.co.jp
----------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
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
