[Pacemaker] [COLOCATION] constraints

[Kashif Jawed Siddiqui]

Hi,



    colocation myset-1 inf: app2 app1
    The above indicates app1 is the Dominant resource. If app1 is stopped, app2 also stops



    The chain is app1 -> app2



    Next,

    colocation myset inf: app1 app2 app3

    the above indiactes app1 is the Dominant resource.

    If app1 is stopped, app2 & app3 also stops,

    if app2 stops, then only app3 stops



    The chain is app1 -> app2 -> app3



    The above is equivalent of:

    colocation myset-1 inf: app2 app1
    colocation myset-2 inf: app3 app2

    The question:

    Why the ordering of allocating resource cannot follow one format? Why difference of configuration?



    Why not implement like below?

    colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2

    The chain can be app1 -> app2



    colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2 app3

    The chain is app1 -> app2 -> app3



    And its equivalent (for easy understanding can be)

     colocation myset-1 inf: app1 app2

     colocation myset-2 inf: app2 app3



    And so on..



    Why is the diffrence in configuration for 2 resources only? More than 2 resources follow the same pattern.



    Please help explain?













Regards,
Kashif Jawed Siddiqui

***************************************************************************************
This e-mail and attachments contain confidential information from HUAWEI, which is intended only for the person or entity whose address is listed above. Any use of the information contained herein in any way (including, but not limited to, total or partial disclosure, reproduction, or dissemination) by persons other than the intended recipient's) is prohibited. If you receive this e-mail in error, please notify the sender by phone or email immediately and delete it!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20120914/68f42fc0/attachment.html>