On Mon, 2008-05-19 at 10:18 +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2008-05-19T13:34:16, Nitin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I have small idea. Should we create a new policy under which we can > > define container resources (such as VMs). These container resources in > > turn can house other resources say "contained resources". Contained > > resources may have collocation/dependency constraints too. > > > > This way CRM would be aware of contained resources and will run them > > only on their containers. > > > > Does it make sense to you?? > > This makes sense and is pretty well understood, alas it is not "small" > and not that easily done - otherwise, we'd have it already ;-) > Idea was small not the consequences. ;-)
But if someone can guide me then I am ready to take up the task. I am ready to invest 3-5 weeks. Please advise how to start/where to start. > > Regards, > Lars > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list [email protected] http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
