[Pacemaker] symmetric anti-collocation

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Sat, Nov 13, 2010 at 5:09 PM, Alan Jones <falancluster at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

INFINITY

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>