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

[Andrew Beekhof]

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.

> 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
>