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

Wed Apr 28 00:46:47 UTC 2010

Hi Andrew,

> Oh, that was some development logging I forgot to remove.
> I'll backport that fix in a moment too.

All right.
Thanks!

Best Regards,
Hideo Yamauchi.

--- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 27, 2010 at 9:42 AM,  <renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp> wrote:
> > Hi Andrew,
> >
> >> > Done.
> >> > � �http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/rev/f7da9d09ebd2
> >
> >
> > It seems to move with your patch definitely.
> >
> > But, the following error is reflected on log.
> > Does not this error have any problem?
> >
> > Apr 27 16:37:00 srv01 pengine: [5839]: ERROR: native_merge_weights: Applying
> group:internal_colocation
> > Apr 27 16:37:12 srv01 pengine: [5839]: ERROR: native_merge_weights: Applying
> group:internal_colocation
> 
> Oh, that was some development logging I forgot to remove.
> I'll backport that fix in a moment too.
> 
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Hideo Yamacuhi.
> >
> >
> > --- renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Andrew,
> >>
> >> > Done.
> >> > � �http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/stable-1.0/rev/f7da9d09ebd2
> >>
> >> Thanks.
> >>
> >> Best Regards,
> >> Hideo Yamauchi.
> >>
> >> --- Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> > 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
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> 
=== 以下のメッセージは省略されました ===