[Pacemaker] About influence of resouce-stickiness which used colocation for limitation.

[Andrew Beekhof]

Done.
   http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/rev/f7da9d09ebd2

On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 4:18 AM,  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> Hi Andrew,
>
> Version 1.0 is necessary for us.
> Please backport your revision to version 1.0.
>
> Best Regards,
> Hideo Yamauchi.
>
>
> --- renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp wrote:
>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> > Fixed in:
>> >    http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/4c775a4abc87
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Hideo Yamauchi.
>>
>>
>> --- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>>
>> > Fixed in:
>> >    http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/1.1/rev/4c775a4abc87
>> >
>> > 2010/4/22  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp>:
>> > > Hi,
>> > >
>> > > We tested the cluster constitution of four nodes.
>> > >
>> > > srv04 is a standby node, and others are active nodes.
>> > >
>> > > We use INIFINITY for resouce-stickiness well.
>> > >
>> > > But, there was a problem for resource placement when we set INIFINITY in resouce-stickiness.
>> > > (An OVDBgroup02-1 resource did not start in an active srv01 node.)
>> > >
>> > > There was not a problem for resource placement when we set 1000 in resouce-stickiness.
>> > >
>> > >  * resource-stickiness=1000
>> > >
>> > > [root at srv01 ~]# crm_mon -1
>> > > ============
>> > > Last updated: Thu Apr 22 15:34:03 2010
>> > > Stack: openais
>> > > Current DC: srv01 - partition with quorum
>> > > Version: 1.0.8-52c101df29bd1851b2ea6dc13bbba450418d103b
>> > > 4 Nodes configured, 4 expected votes
>> > > 9 Resources configured.
>> > > ============
>> > >
>> > > Online: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >
>> > >  Resource Group: UMgroup01
>> > >     UmVIPcheck (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-1
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01 ---> not problem
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-2
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-3
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
>> > >  Clone Set: clnUMgroup01
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnPingd
>> > >     Started: [ srv02 srv03 srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnDiskd1
>> > >     Started: [ srv02 srv03 srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnG3dummy1
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnG3dummy2
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >  * resource-stickiness=INFINITY
>> > >
>> > > [root at srv01 ~]# crm_mon -1
>> > > ============
>> > > Last updated: Thu Apr 22 15:23:43 2010
>> > > Stack: openais
>> > > Current DC: srv01 - partition with quorum
>> > > Version: 1.0.8-52c101df29bd1851b2ea6dc13bbba450418d103b
>> > > 4 Nodes configured, 4 expected votes
>> > > 9 Resources configured.
>> > > ============
>> > >
>> > > Online: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >
>> > >  Resource Group: UMgroup01
>> > >     UmVIPcheck (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv01
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-1
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB1 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv04 ---> problem
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-2
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB2 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv02
>> > >  Resource Group: OVDBgroup02-3
>> > >     prmExPostgreSQLDB3 (ocf::heartbeat:Dummy): Started srv03
>> > >  Clone Set: clnUMgroup01
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnPingd
>> > >     Started: [ srv02 srv03 srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnDiskd1
>> > >     Started: [ srv02 srv03 srv01 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnG3dummy1
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >  Clone Set: clnG3dummy2
>> > >     Started: [ srv01 srv02 srv03 srv04 ]
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > When we do not use colocation, this problem does not happen.
>> > >
>> > > We think that a difference of resource-stickiness influences it.
>> > >
>> > > When we put colocation and resoucre-stickiness together, will the calculation of the score
>> be
>> > right?
>> > >
>> > > Is the movement when we set INIFINITY in resource-stickiness a bug?
>> > >
>> > >  * I read the next document to examine colocation.
>> > >  * http://www.clusterlabs.org/wiki/File:Colocation_Explained_-_White.pdf
>> > >  * However, I was not able to understand the connection with resource-stickiness.
>> > >
>> > > Best Regards,
>> > > Hideo Yamauchi.
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> > > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>> > >
>> > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> > > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> > >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>> >
>> > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> >
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>>
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>