Re: [Pacemaker] Resource inter-dependency without being a 'group'

2012-02-20 Thread Andrew Beekhof
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 9:11 AM, David Coulson wrote: > On 2/18/12 4:33 PM, Florian Haas wrote: >> >> Is setting "meta collocated=false" not working for your group? > > Along similar lines, if I have default-resource-stickiness="200" set, what > is the best way to 'rebalance' resources following a

Re: [Pacemaker] Resource inter-dependency without being a 'group'

2012-02-18 Thread David Coulson
On 2/18/12 4:33 PM, Florian Haas wrote: Is setting "meta collocated=false" not working for your group? Along similar lines, if I have default-resource-stickiness="200" set, what is the best way to 'rebalance' resources following a node failure? In general, if I lose a node I don't want resource

Re: [Pacemaker] Resource inter-dependency without being a 'group'

2012-02-18 Thread David Coulson
On 2/18/12 4:33 PM, Florian Haas wrote: Is setting "meta collocated=false" not working for your group? Yep, I found that option shortly after posting my email question. Need to try it in production tomorrow morning, but it worked in my dev environment with dummy resources. Thanks- David

Re: [Pacemaker] Resource inter-dependency without being a 'group'

2012-02-18 Thread Florian Haas
On Sat, Feb 18, 2012 at 7:19 PM, David Coulson wrote: > I have an active/active LVS cluster, which uses pacemaker for managing IP > resources. Currently I have one environment running on it which utilizes ~30 > IP addresses, so a group was created so all resources could be > stopped/started togeth

[Pacemaker] Resource inter-dependency without being a 'group'

2012-02-18 Thread David Coulson
I have an active/active LVS cluster, which uses pacemaker for managing IP resources. Currently I have one environment running on it which utilizes ~30 IP addresses, so a group was created so all resources could be stopped/started together. Downside of that is that all resources have to run on t