[Pacemaker] resource priority

[Dennis Jacobfeuerborn]

On 09.11.2013 00:15, Dennis Jacobfeuerborn wrote:
> Hi,
> I'm finally moving forward with creating a redundant gateway System for
> a network but I'm running into trouble. This is the configuration that
> I'm using:
>
> node gw01 \
>      attributes standby="off"
> node gw02 \
>      attributes standby="off"
> primitive p_ip_gw_ext ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \
>      params ip="192.168.100.132" cidr_netmask="29" nic="eth0" \
>      op monitor interval="10s"
> primitive p_ip_gw_int ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2 \
>      params ip="192.168.214.4" cidr_netmask="24" nic="eth1" \
>      op monitor interval="10s"
> primitive p_route_ext ocf:heartbeat:Route \
>      params destination="default" device="eth0" gateway="192.168.100.129" \
>      op monitor interval="10" timeout="20" depth="0"
> primitive p_route_int ocf:heartbeat:Route \
>      params destination="default" device="eth1" gateway="192.168.214.1" \
>      op monitor interval="10" timeout="20" depth="0"
> group g_gateway p_ip_gw_ext p_ip_gw_int
> colocation c_route_ext -inf: p_route_ext p_ip_gw_ext
> colocation c_routes -inf: p_route_ext p_route_int
> property $id="cib-bootstrap-options" \
>      dc-version="1.1.10-1.el6_4.4-368c726" \
>      cluster-infrastructure="cman" \
>      stonith-enabled="false" \
>      no-quorum-policy="ignore" \
>      last-lrm-refresh="1383949342"
>
> The setup is fairly simple. One IP on the public interface, one IP on
> the private interface. On the active system the default route is
> configured through the public interface, on the secondary system the
> default route is configured through the private interface.
>
> The problem is that when I put the active node on standby the
> p_route_int resource stays on the secondary system and the p_route_ext
> resource gets stopped.
>
> My interpretation is that since there is no explicit priority defined
> for either route and with only one node online only one route can be
> placed that pacemaker decides arbitrarily to keep p_route_int online and
> take p_route_ext offline.
>
> What I really want to express is that p_route_ext should always be
> placed first and p_route_int only be placed if possible (i.e. forced
> migration) but if not should be taken offline instead (i.e. a node is
> down).
> Any ideas on how to accomplish this?

After sending the mail it occured to me that "place one route not on the 
same node as the other" is a wrong way to look at this. Instead I did this:

colocation c_route_ext inf: p_route_ext p_ip_gw_ext
colocation c_route_int -inf: p_route_int p_ip_gw_ext

i.e. place the ext route with the ext ip and the int route on a node 
where the ext ip is *not* running. That way the routes no longer depend 
on each other and the priority of the routes no longer matters.

Sorry for the noise.

Regards,
   Dennis