Hi,
colocation myset-1 inf: app2 app1
The above indicates app1 is the Dominant resource. If app1 is stopped, app2
also stops
The chain is app1 -> app2
Next,
colocation myset inf: app1 app2 app3
the above indiactes app1 is the Dominant resource.
If app1 is stopped, app2 & app3 also stops,
if app2 stops, then only app3 stops
The chain is app1 -> app2 -> app3
The above is equivalent of:
colocation myset-1 inf: app2 app1
colocation myset-2 inf: app3 app2
The question:
Why the ordering of allocating resource cannot follow one format? Why
difference of configuration?
Why not implement like below?
colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2
The chain can be app1 -> app2
colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2 app3
The chain is app1 -> app2 -> app3
And its equivalent (for easy understanding can be)
colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2
colocation myset-2 inf: app2 app3
And so on..
Why is the diffrence in configuration for 2 resources only? More than 2
resources follow the same pattern.
Please help explain?
Regards,
Kashif Jawed Siddiqui
***************************************************************************************
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which
is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any
use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited
to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons
other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail
in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
_______________________________________________
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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
