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

[Vadym Chepkov]

On Jun 15, 2010, at 6:14 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 10:57:47AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> You wanted to say "sequential == false"?
> 
>> For some reason the shell appears to be setting that by default.
> 
> This is sequential == false:
> 
> colocation together inf: ( dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 ) dummy4
> 
> This is sequential == true:
> 
> colocation together inf: dummy1 dummy2 dummy3 dummy4
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Dejan


I guess colocation syntax needs to be expanded to allow something like this

colocation only-one -inf: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true")

colocation together 5000: (dummy1 dummy2 sequential="true")

Vadym