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

[Yuusuke IIDA]

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?

>
> 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

-- 
----------------------------------------
METRO SYSTEMS CO., LTD

Yuusuke Iida
Mail: iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp
----------------------------------------