On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:51 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
> BTW: The order matters in the colocation rule. When I configure:
> colocation colo-master_worker -1: master worker
> Then "failback" is blocked by the stickiness. In my opinion this is a bug,
> but others may have an explanation.
The order i
The following rules give me the behavior I was looking for:
primitive master ocf:pacemaker:Dummy meta resource-stickiness="INFINITY"
is-managed="true"
location l-master_a master 1: fc12-a
location l-master_b master 1: fc12-b
primitive master ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
location l-worker_a worker 1: fc12-a
BTW: The order matters in the colocation rule. When I configure:
colocation colo-master_worker -1: master worker
Then "failback" is blocked by the stickiness. In my opinion this is a bug,
but others may have an explanation.
This is the default version that installs on FC12 using the GUI software
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 9:18 PM, Alan Jones wrote:
> Well, I guess my configuration is not as common.
> In my case, one of these resources, say resource A, suffers greater
> disruption if it is moved.
> So, after a failover I would prefer that resource B move, reversing the node
> placement.
> Is
Rather than expressing it directly, is it possible to create a resource
(maybe anything) that runs on failover to modify the configuration to make
the resource stick to the current node?
Cheers,
Jie
On Tue, Mar 23, 2010 at 11:44 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 01:18:35PM -0700, Alan Jones wrote:
> Well, I guess my configuration is not as common.
> In my case, one of these resources, say resource A, suffers greater
> disruption if it is moved.
> So, after a failover I would prefer that resource B move, reversing the node
> pla
Well, I guess my configuration is not as common.
In my case, one of these resources, say resource A, suffers greater
disruption if it is moved.
So, after a failover I would prefer that resource B move, reversing the node
placement.
Is this possible to express?
Alan
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:10 AM
Hi,
On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 09:29:50AM -0700, Alan Jones wrote:
> Friends,
> I have what should be a simple goal. Two resources to run on two nodes.
> I'd like to configure them to run on separate nodes when available, ie.
> active-active,
> and provide for them to run together on either node whe
