[Pacemaker] [Question]About "sequential" designation of resource_set.

[renayama19661014 at ybb.ne.jp]

Hi Andrew,

Thank you for comments.

> Oh!
> I somehow failed to recognise that you were using 1.0
> There is a reasonable chance that 1.1 behaves better in this regard.
> 
> I also notice, now, that the resources are still in a group - deleting the ordering constraint achieves nothing if the resources are still in a group.  Just define the resources and the colocation set, no group.

All right!

We use "ordered" of group in Pacemaker1.0.
In Pacemaker1.1, I believe that resourece_set moves in the future in substitution for ordered in group.

Many Thanks!
Hideo Yamauchi.