[Pacemaker] Pacemaker resource migration behaviour

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Wed, Mar 6, 2013 at 8:02 PM, James Guthrie <jag at open.ch> wrote:
> 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".

You get those semantics from a normal primitive resource.

> 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.

I think 1.1.8 allowed for operations with role=Stopped which would do
this for the highly paranoid :-)

>
> Regards,
> James
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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