[Pacemaker] BUG in master scores: negative master score leads to _stop_ of instance - why?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Lars Ellenberg
<lars.ellenberg at linbit.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 01, 2009 at 05:45:30PM +0200, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>
>> attached is a full cibadmin -Q.
>
> I hate it. grmblf.
>
>> there is exactly one master slave configured,
>> primitive is the dummy Stateful agent.
>>
>> current cluster state is "stable",
>> one Master, one Slave, all well.
>>
>> if I now change the master score of the slave to -2 (or -5, or
>> -INFINITY), ptest complains about "cannot run anywhere",
>> and stopps it!
>> (which is also what we see when actually using it,
>>  whether with that dummy Stateful RA, or with DRBD).
>>
>> I was told to use negative master scores to prevent promotion,
>> and I'd like to do so.  But apparently that is a no-go.
>>
>> Why would a negative master score cause a slave to be stopped?

Looks like something thats been fixed since 1.0.5
I get:

[09:33 AM] beekhof at mobile ~/Development/pacemaker/stable-1.0 #
pengine/ptest -VVVV --xml-file ~/Downloads/Stateful-bug.xml -s -D
foo.dot
Allocation scores:
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: unpack_config: On loss of
CCM Quorum: Ignore
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 info: unpack_config: Node scores:
'red' = -INFINITY, 'yellow' = 0, 'green' = 0
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 info: determine_online_status: Node
sles11-b is online
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 info: determine_online_status: Node
sles11-a is online
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: clone_print: Master/Slave
Set: ms_res_Stateful_1
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: print_list: 	Masters: [ sles11-a ]
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: print_list: 	Slaves: [ sles11-b ]
clone_color: ms_res_Stateful_1 allocation score on sles11-a: 0
clone_color: ms_res_Stateful_1 allocation score on sles11-b: 0
clone_color: res_Stateful_1:0 allocation score on sles11-a: 11
clone_color: res_Stateful_1:0 allocation score on sles11-b: 0
clone_color: res_Stateful_1:1 allocation score on sles11-a: 0
clone_color: res_Stateful_1:1 allocation score on sles11-b: 6
native_color: res_Stateful_1:0 allocation score on sles11-a: 11
native_color: res_Stateful_1:0 allocation score on sles11-b: 0
native_color: res_Stateful_1:1 allocation score on sles11-a: -1000000
native_color: res_Stateful_1:1 allocation score on sles11-b: 6
res_Stateful_1:0 promotion score on sles11-a: 10
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 info: master_color: Promoting
res_Stateful_1:0 (Master sles11-a)
res_Stateful_1:1 promotion score on sles11-b: 5
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 info: master_color:
ms_res_Stateful_1: Promoted 1 instances of a possible 1 to master
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: LogActions: Leave resource
res_Stateful_1:0	(Master sles11-a)
ptest[12205]: 2009/10/12_09:33:48 notice: LogActions: Leave resource
res_Stateful_1:1	(Slave sles11-b)

How does that compare to your output?