[Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

[Alan Jones]

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 3:20 AM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 12, 2010 at 5:27 PM, Alan Jones <falancluster at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 11, 2010 at 11:31 PM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>>>> colocation X-Y -2: X Y
>>>> colocation Y-X -2: Y X
>>>
>>> the second one is implied by the first and is therefore redundant
>>
>> If only that were true!
>
> It is. I know exactly how my code works in this regard.
> More than likely a score of -2 is simply too low to have any effect.

I have tried larger values.  If you know of a value that *should*
work, please share it.
I wish to be able to predict the behavior, so arbitrary values are not
acceptable.
It is either large enough to overcome competing values or not.
In this configuration I've set the default resource stickyness to zero and set a
node location rule per resource to one.  It is clear from the logs
that the -2 is
not being applied.  I also tried unique large numbers to see if I
could trace their
propagation, e.g. -1965, with no effect.
If you have time to look at this, I will have to create sanitized
versions of logs
and configuration, etc.  Let me know.
Alan