[Pacemaker] group resource - altering default order

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 2:59 AM, Nicolaas Stuyt
<Nicolaas.Stuyt at rcmp-grc.gc.ca> wrote:
> Thank you for pointing me at this discussion thread. The configuration did
> help me to achieve what I was looking for. Now though I wonder if I should
> because of the threads end-point comment.
>
> Any idea what the background explanation may be for the comment:
> "an unordered and/or uncolocated groups are an abomination"

Just use a colocation set instead.

>
> The thread stops with:
> -------------------------
> Unordered and/or uncolocated groups are an abomination.
> Is that enough light?
> -------------------------
>
> Nick
>
>>>> Florian Crouzat <gentoo at floriancrouzat.net> 2012-06-14 09:56 >>>
>
> Le 14/06/2012 14:55, Nicolaas Stuyt a écrit :
>> Hello,
>> Is there a way to affect a groups ordering behavior? The default appears
>> to be left to right which I can understand. However if I wish to create
>> a group of "like primitives" and not primitives who are dependant on
>> each other - for example a list of (ocf::heartbeat:Filesystem)
>> primitives - then I care less about the order. I was hoping to specify a
>> meta characteristic like "lazy" I guess; something like meta
>> order="lazy" or "not-applicable". This ordering behavior seems to exist
>> in colocation as well.
>> What I wish to achieve is to take a file system resource down - say for
>> maintenance and then allow it to come back when maintenance is completed
>> without affecting the other Filesystem primitives down the list.
>> To provide a visual illustration of this I created a cloned group of
>> dummies using (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy) and I have stopped just the last
>> dummy primitive:
>> Clone Set: cl_dummies [grp_dummies]
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:0
>> dummy1:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy2:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy3:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy4:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy5:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:1
>> dummy1:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy2:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy3:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy4:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy5:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> When all are running crm_mon presents as:
>> Clone Set: cl_dummies [grp_dummies]
>> Started: [ node1 node2]
>> What I want to achieve is to take a middle dummy primitive out but leave
>> the rest running. When I do that - for example on dummy3; dummies 4 and
>> 5 also get taken out such that I am left with this:
>> Clone Set: cl_dummies [grp_dummies]
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:0
>> dummy1:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy2:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy3:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy4:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy5:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:1
>> dummy1:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy2:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy3:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy4:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy5:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> What I would like is this:
>> Clone Set: cl_dummies [grp_dummies]
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:0
>> dummy1:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy2:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy3:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy4:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> dummy5:0 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node1
>> Resource Group: grp_dummies:1
>> dummy1:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy2:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy3:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Stopped
>> dummy4:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> dummy5:1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started node2
>> A work around I have considered is to edit the group and resort the list
>> so that the Filesystem primitive I'm interested in working on is named
>> last but I wonder if I'll remember ;-) to do that the next time I need
>> to perform maintenance.
>> Or is there a better way to do this that I have not been introduced too
>> yet?
>> Regards,
>> Nick
>
> It's already been discussed a couple times.
> See
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-March/009435.html
> and follow link/answers.
>
> --
> Cheers,
> Florian Crouzat
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>