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

[Gao,Yan]

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?

> 
>>
>> 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.