[Pacemaker] Shouldn't colocation -inf: be mandatory?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:23 AM, Andreas Kurz <andreas.kurz at linbit.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday 15 June 2010 08:40:58 Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:22 PM, Vadym Chepkov <vchepkov at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jun 7, 2010, at 8:04 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
>> >> I filed bug 2435, glad to hear "it's not me"
>> >
>> > Andrew closed this bug
>> > (http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2435) as
>> > resolved, but I respectfully disagree.
>> >
>> > I will try to explain a problem again in this list.
>> >
>> > lets assume you want to have several resources running on the same node.
>> > They are independent, so if one is going down, others shouldn't be
>> > stopped. You would do this by using a resource set, like this:
>> >
>> > primitive dummy1 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> > primitive dummy2 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> > primitive dummy3 ocf:pacemaker:Dummy
>> > colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 )
>> >
>> > and I expect them to run on the same host, but they are not and I
>> > attached hb_report to the case to prove it.
>> >
>> > Andrew closed it with the comment "Thats because you have
>> > sequential="false" for the colocation set." But sequential="false" means
>> > doesn't matter what order do they start.
>>
>> No.  Thats not what it means.
>> And I believe I should know.
>>
>> It means that the members of the set are NOT collocated with each
>> other, only with any preceding set.
>
> Just for clarification:
>
> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4
>
> .... is a shortcut for:
>
> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy1
> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy2
> colocation together1 inf: dummy4 dummy3
>
> ... is that correct?

Only if sequential != false.
For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default.

>
> To pick up Vadym's Question:
>
> *  what would be the correct syntax to say "run-together-but-dont-care-if-one-
> dies-or-is-not-runable"?

Choose a score < inf, just like regular colocation constraints.

>
> Regards,
> Andreas
>
>>
>> > colocation still has to be honored.
>> >
>> > If I am wrong, what syntax I should use to achieve the described
>> > configuration?
>> >
>> > Thank you,
>> > Vadym Chepkov
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>> > Bugs:
>> > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>> Bugs:
>>  http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>