[Pacemaker] A question and demand to a resource placement strategy function

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at novell.com> wrote:
> On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
>> Hi, Yan
>>
>> An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
>>
>> (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
>>> I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
>>> placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the
>>> "default" is somewhat intended not to be affected by any "placement
>>> strategy" so that the behaviors of existing pengine test cases and
>>> users' deployments remain unchanged.
>> I think that a function dispersed with the number of the start of the
>> resource has a problem at the time of "default" setting.
>>
>> This problem is the Pacemaker-1.0 series, but does the same movement.
>> If it could be settled by this correction, I thought a correction to be
>> applicable in Pacemaker-1.0.
>>
>> Should not this problem be revised?
> This would affect dozens of existing regression tests, although most of
> the changes are just the scores of clone instances, which are due to
> different resource allocating orders. Given 1.0 is in such a maintenance
> state, I'm not sure we should do that for 1.0.
>
> Andrew, what do you think about it? Perhaps we should fix the
> resource-number-balancing for "default" strategy in 1.1 at least?

I think for 1.1 we can do something, I'd just like to understand the
the implications of the patch.
It would help if there was a testcase that illustrated the negative behaviour.

Is it necessary that both parts of the old if-block are always run?

>
>>
>>>
>>> For "utilization" strategy, load-balancing is still done based on the
>>> number of resources allocated to a node. That might be a choice.
>>>
>> When I do not set capacity by "utilization" setting in Pacemaker-1.1 ,
>> expected movement is possible!
>>
>> Best Regards,
>> Yuusuke IIDA
>>
>
> Regards,
>  Yan
> --
> Gao,Yan <ygao at novell.com>
> Software Engineer
> China Server Team, SUSE.
>