On Dec 6, 2008, at 4:45 PM, Raoul Bhatia [IPAX] wrote:
Andrew Beekhof wrote:
but not the clone name (i took a guess before because i didn't know
what
it was called):
crm_resource -M -r clone_webservice
indeed - but in my opinion, i want to tell the cluster the exact
resource that i want to migrate and the cluster should work the rest
out itself.
nope
this doesn't make sense for clones because such a location constraint
does nothing to prevent any of its peers from running there.
so you've caused a heap of churn and the clone is still running there
- just with a different name.
bottom line, you don't get to chose where specific clone instances get
placed.
as far as i remember, the clones/groups are just an easy way to
configure resources and not having to specify all the rules/
constraints
manually.
groups yes, clones definitely not.
there is no combination of primitives and constraints that results in
a clone.
so, imho, it could be valid that parts of the group remain running.
a.g. when i have a group with A B C D and C is not able to start,
then A B will still be able to run - right?
possibly, but that is a failure state and being able to "configure"
every possible failure state isn't one of the design goals :-)
_______________________________________________
Pacemaker mailing list
[email protected]
http://list.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
