[Pacemaker] symmetrical ordering flaw for multi-state resources

[Gao,Yan]

Hi Youssef,
I tried "promote" and it worked for my simple configuration.

Which version are you running? Is it possible to collect a
hb_report/crm_report that covers the moment?

Regards,
  Yan

On 09/30/2014 05:50 PM, Latrous, Youssef wrote:
> Thank Yan for the answer.
> 
> I think I found the issue. If you change the first action from "start" to "promote" than the issue happens (which was what I was using):
> 
>     order order-msA-msB Mandatory: msA:promote msB:start symmetrical=false
> 
> with meta attribute interleave=true.
> 
> Why is there a difference here between the two actions? In other words, why does it work when we use:
>     order order-msA-msB Mandatory: msA:start msB:start symmetrical=false
> 
> and not when we use:
>     order order-msA-msB Mandatory: msA:promote msB:start symmetrical=false
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Youssef
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 13:47:23 +0200
> From: "Gao,Yan" <ygao at suse.com>
> To: The Pacemaker cluster resource manager
> 	<pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org>
> Subject: Re: [Pacemaker] symmetrical ordering flaw for multi-state
> 	resources
> Message-ID: <5425524B.9010600 at suse.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
> 
> Hi Youssef,
> 
> Is the order like:
> 
> order order-msA-msB Mandatory: msA:start msB:start symmetrical=false
> 
> ? and msA and msB have the meta attribute interleave=true? If so and it doesn't work, please collect a hb_report/crm_report covering the issue.
> 
> Regards,
>   Yan
> 
> On 09/25/2014 08:13 PM, Latrous, Youssef wrote:
>> Reposting from few weeks ago as I didn't get any answer yet :-(
>>
>> I included below the original post and tried to rephrase it in this second one, hoping my concern will be understood.
>>
>> I tried to use a dummy multi-state RA and have an asymmetrical ordering dependency to another resource (B). While an equivalent ordering to the same resource, but from a regular resource, works just fine, it did not work for the multi-state RA. What I mean by it didn't work is that it stopped the multi-state RA, when the resource (B) was stopped, but the regular resource kept running as expected (and documented in pacemaker)!
>>
>> Is this a bug in pacemaker or is it known to not work with multi-state RAs? Other possibility, there a different way of using the "symmetrical" option for multi-state RA ordering?
>>
>> Please, help!
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Youssef
>>
>> PS. Below is the original post.
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I was trying to express the following:
>>    * Configure 3 resources:
>>       * A: multi-state resource
>>       * B: another multi-state resource
>>       * C: regular primitive
>>    * On startup sequence, when all resources were previously stopped, ensure the following mandatory ordering:
>>       * A starts, then B
>>       * A starts, then C
>>    * After that, if A fails or restarts, do not impact B and C
>>
>> The docs state that setting the "symmetrical" option to "false" (...symmetrical=false) on the corresponding ordering constraints does the trick.
>> This works just fine for resource C, but not for resource B.
>>
>> Is there a restriction I'm not aware of for the multi-state resources with regard to this option? That is the option "symmetrical" doesn't take effect on multi-state resources. Is there something extra that needs to be done/specified for the multi-state resources?
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Youssef L.
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>>
>>
> 
> --
> Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
> Senior Software Engineer
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH
> 

-- 
Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
Senior Software Engineer
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH