[Pacemaker] Pacemaker resource migration behaviour

[James Guthrie]

Hi Andrew,

Thanks for looking into this. We have since decided not to perform a failover on the failure of one of the sub-* resources for operational reasons. As a result, I can't reliably test if this issue is actually fixed in the current HEAD. (Speaking of which, do you have a date set yet for 1.1.9?)

On Mar 6, 2013, at 8:39 AM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:

> I'm still very confused about why you're using master/slave though.

The reason I went with master-slave was that we want the init script started on the "master" host and stopped on the "slave". With a master-slave I have a monitor operation on the slave ensuring that the resource will be stopped on the slave if it were to be started manually (something I can't be sure wouldn't happen). AFAIK this wouldn't be the case with a "standard" resource.

Regards,
James