Thanks,
>>
>> Youssef
>>
>> -Original Message-
>> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:47:23 +0200
>> From: "Gao,Yan"
>> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
>>
>> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetrical ordering flaw for multi-state
&g
false
>
> Thanks,
>
> Youssef
>
> -Original Message-
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:47:23 +0200
> From: "Gao,Yan"
> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
>
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetrical ordering flaw for multi-state
>
Original Message-
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:47:23 +0200
From: "Gao,Yan"
To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetrical ordering flaw for multi-state
resources
Message-ID: <5425524b.9010...@suse.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; chars
Hi Youssef,
Is the order like:
order order-msA-msB Mandatory: msA:start msB:start symmetrical=false
? and msA and msB have the meta attribute interleave=true? If so and it
doesn't work, please collect a hb_report/crm_report covering the issue.
Regards,
Yan
On 09/25/2014 08:13 PM, Latrous, Yo
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
