[Pacemaker] Confusing semantics of colocation sets

[Andreas Kurz]

On 07/02/2012 08:28 PM, Phil Frost wrote:
> On 07/02/2012 12:50 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> What is being mangled actually? The crm shell does what is
>> possible given the pacemaker RNG schema. It is unfortunate that
>> the design is slightly off, but that cannot be fixed in the crm
>> syntax.
> 
> I will demonstrate my point by offering a quiz to the list. Tell me,
> without running these examples, what effect they will have:
> 
> [1] colocation foo inf: a b ( c:Master d )

whenever you change the Role an extra set is created .... no different
roles in a resource set ... and between colocation-sets the direction of
dependencies is like in a simple 2-resource colocation

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
Need help with Pacemaker?
http://www.hastexo.com/now


> [2] colocation foo inf: a b
> [3] colocation foo inf: a b c
> [4] colocation foo inf: a b c:Master
> 
> Hints:
> 
> - there are three resource sets in [1]
> - [2] is not a subnet of [3]
> - [4] is not ordered a, b, c
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org




-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 222 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20120708/cca62ca3/attachment-0004.sig>