Reposting from few weeks ago as I didn't get any answer yet :-(
I included below the original post and tried to rephrase it in this second one,
hoping my concern will be understood.
I tried to use a dummy multi-state RA and have an asymmetrical ordering
dependency to another resource (B). While an equivalent ordering to the same
resource, but from a regular resource, works just fine, it did not work for the
multi-state RA. What I mean by it didn't work is that it stopped the
multi-state RA, when the resource (B) was stopped, but the regular resource
kept running as expected (and documented in pacemaker)!
Is this a bug in pacemaker or is it known to not work with multi-state RAs?
Other possibility, there a different way of using the "symmetrical" option for
multi-state RA ordering?
Please, help!
Regards,
Youssef
PS. Below is the original post.
Hi,
I was trying to express the following:
* Configure 3 resources:
* A: multi-state resource
* B: another multi-state resource
* C: regular primitive
* On startup sequence, when all resources were previously stopped, ensure
the following mandatory ordering:
* A starts, then B
* A starts, then C
* After that, if A fails or restarts, do not impact B and C
The docs state that setting the "symmetrical" option to "false"
(...symmetrical=false) on the corresponding ordering constraints does the trick.
This works just fine for resource C, but not for resource B.
Is there a restriction I'm not aware of for the multi-state resources with
regard to this option? That is the option "symmetrical" doesn't take effect on
multi-state resources. Is there something extra that needs to be done/specified
for the multi-state resources?
Regards,
Youssef L.
_______________________________________________
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
