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

[Vadym Chepkov]

On Jun 15, 2010, at 3:52 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 15, 2010 at 12:53:07PM -0400, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
>> 
>> On Jun 15, 2010, at 9:26 AM, Vadym Chepkov wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> what about this part? what do I need to do to prevent them from running on different nodes for sure?
>>>> 
>>>> You can't have it both ways.
>>>> Either they have to run on the same node or they can remain active
>>>> when one or more die.
>>>> 
>>>> Although you could do:
>>>> 
>>>> d1 ( d2 d3 d4 )
>>>> 
>>>> That would almost get what you want, unless d1 dies.
>>> 
>>> I guess I would have to keep the most significant as an anchor, I can
>>> leave with it.
>>> Unfortunately, as far as I understand, there is no way do define this
>>> in shell config now, because shell adds sequential=false when it sees
>>> ().
> 
> Yes it does. So, you want to have two adjacent sequential sets in
> one constraint? Not very elegant, but I guess that this would do
> until we figure out how to represent it:
> 
> colocation c1 inf: p1:Started p2 p3 p4
> 
> In xml:
> 
>      <rsc_colocation id="c1" score="500">
>        <resource_set id="c1-0" role="Started">
>          <resource_ref id="p1"/>
>        </resource_set>
>        <resource_set id="c1-1">
>          <resource_ref id="p2"/>
>          <resource_ref id="p3"/>
>          <resource_ref id="p4"/>
>        </resource_set>
>      </rsc_colocation>
> 
> Thanks,

But I think it should be at the end, like this:

colocation together 500: d1 d2 anchor:Started

to use the "anchor" approach? Right?

Thanks,
Vadym