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

[Dejan Muhamedagic]

Hi,

On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 08:45:37AM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
> 
> 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")

How's this different from a regular constraint?

Thanks,

Dejan

> 
> Vadym
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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