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

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> 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"?

no.

!=
ne
not equal to

>
>> 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

How do you say that 1-3 are in one sequential set and 4 is in a different set?