<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2011/7/5 Andrew Beekhof <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrew@beekhof.net">andrew@beekhof.net</a>></span><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:42 PM, ruslan usifov <<a href="mailto:ruslan.usifov@gmail.com">ruslan.usifov@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
> 2011/6/27 Andrew Beekhof <<a href="mailto:andrew@beekhof.net">andrew@beekhof.net</a>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:22 PM, ruslan usifov <<a href="mailto:ruslan.usifov@gmail.com">ruslan.usifov@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > No, i mean that in this constaint:<br>
>> ><br>
>> > location ms_drbd_web-U_slave_on_drbd3 ms_drbd_web-U \<br>
>> > rule role="slave" -inf: #uname ne drbd3<br>
>> ><br>
>> > pacemaker will try to start slave part of resource (if drbd3 is down) on<br>
>> > other nodes, but it doesn't must do that.<br>
>><br>
>> The only way to express this is to have:<br>
>> - a fake resource that can only run on drbd3, and<br>
>> - an ordering constraint tells ms_drbd_web-U to start only after the<br>
>> fake resource is active<br>
>><br>
><br>
> In future releases does this change?<br>
<br>
</div>Its a planned but unimplemented feature.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br></div></div></blockquote></div><br>Whether you can roughly tell when this will be fixed?<br>