Hi Andrew,
> >> Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
> >> consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
> >
> > Yes.
> > I think that a default is not handled well.
> > I will not have any problem when "sequential" attribute is set in cib by
On 17 Feb 2014, at 12:47 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Thank you for comments.
>
>> Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
>> consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
>
> Yes.
> I think that a default is not ha
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for comments.
> Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
> consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
Yes.
I think that a default is not handled well.
I will not have any problem when "sequential" attribute is set in cib
Is this related to your email about symmetrical not being defaulted
consistently between colocate_rsc_sets() and unpack_colocation_set()?
On 22 Jan 2014, at 3:05 pm, renayama19661...@ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> My test seemed to include a mistake.
> It seems to be replaced by two limitation.
Hi All,
My test seemed to include a mistake.
It seems to be replaced by two limitation.
> However, I think that symmetircal="false" is applied to all order limitation
> in this.
> (snip)
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ...
>
>
Hi All,
We confirm a function of resource_set.
There were the resource of the group and the resource of the clone.
(snip)
Stack: corosync
Current DC: srv01 (3232238180) - partition WITHOUT quorum
Version: 1.1.10-f2d0cbc
1 Nodes configured
7 Resources configured
Online: [ srv01 ]
Resource Gro
