Hi, Yan
Thank you for reply.
(2011/10/25 18:01), Gao,Yan wrote:
Hi Yuusuke,
On 10/20/11 20:43, Yuusuke Iida wrote:
Hi, Yan
(2011/09/26 17:46), Gao,Yan wrote:
A glance to the transition. After grpPostgreSQLDB3 was assigned to act1,
grpPostgreSQLDB1 was chosen to be processed, and it was assigned to act2
(because it had no preference between act2 and act3). And then
grpPostgreSQLDB2 went to act3.
Thank you for a reply.
The flow of the present placement understood it.
So the solution might be: After grpPostgreSQLDB3, process
grpPostgreSQLDB2 first rather than grpPostgreSQLDB1. Though the
problem is:
Basing on what policy, we could choose grpPostgreSQLDB2 to process
earlier than grpPostgreSQLDB1? Given the processing order was decided
before assigning them all, i.e before assigning grpPostgreSQLDB3.
Though I thought in various ways, I did not hit on the good thought.
For example, I sort the order of resources that are not yet placed again
whenever I assign one resource.
We cannot re-sort the order of the resources during iterating them to
process.
I understood it.
Will such a correction be difficult?
Actually, I doubt we can find a optimal solution which is able to
perfectly balance between the preference of resource location and the
placement strategy, basing on the current mode of assignment. Perhaps
only some optimization algorithm can resolve such problem.
The optimization algorithm does not occur to me.
Is this problem solved sometime?
Regards,
Yuusuke
Regards,
Gaoyan
--
----------------------------------------
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
