> node-2 fails, group-2 moves to node-4
> node-2 returns
> node-1 fails, group-1 moves to node-2
>
> and no admin intervention in between.
>
> The more common use of N+1 is where the +1 is a shared failover.
> So resources are only moving between their primary node and the +1.
>
> I probably c
Andrew Beekhof writes:
> So sumarizing your setup as group-{1,2,3}; node-{1,2,3,4} where node-4 is
the hot
spare; and that group-N
> prefers node-N...
> In what scenario would group-1 legitimately end up on node-2 or node-3?
>
group-1 should only be able to end up on node-2 or node-3 if no ot
Andrew Beekhof writes:
> Correct.
> Given colocate(A, B, -inf), in order to find out where A can go, we need
to know where B is (going to go).
> Even if we made it so that was no longer the case (which at a stretch
might even be possible after all these
> years), there is still an implicit ord
Hi All,
GOAL: Here is the scenario I'm trying to achieve:
* N+1 asymmetric cluster - I define what nodes I want my resource groups to
run on.
* Equal priority resource groups(colocation and order).
No active resource group should move or go down to make space for another
resource group.
* No
