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

[Dejan Muhamedagic]

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:30:45PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> 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

Hmm, just checked in the Conf explained, on p.47 of the copy I
have here it says the other way. Or I don't understand the matter
either.

> >> 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?

No way. Make two sets perhaps?

Thanks,

Dejan

> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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