On 23 Apr 2014, at 1:46 am, Igal Baevsky <[email protected]> wrote:
> Andrew Beekhof <andrew@...> writes:
>
>> Correct.
>> Given colocate(A, B, -inf), in order to find out where A can go, we need
> to know where B is (going to go).
>> Even if we made it so that was no longer the case (which at a stretch
> might even be possible after all these
>> years), there is still an implicit ordering from their order in the
> configuration.
>>
>> Unfortunately the human brain is still significantly more intelligent than
> Pacemaker.
>> What seems obvious to us is not at all obvious to it.
>>
>> Can all three groups run on all nodes? Or just its own and the shared
> backup?
>
>
> Ideally, I would want all three groups to be able to run on all nodes based
> on pre-assigned priorities(nodes might have different hardware specs).
> What I want to prevent though, is a situation where one group is being shut
> down or moved to make space for another group.
So sumarizing your setup as group-{1,2,3}; node-{1,2,3,4} where node-4 is the
hot spare; and that group-N prefers node-N...
In what scenario would group-1 legitimately end up on node-2 or node-3?
> This is exactly what's
> happening now when all nodes are taken.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected]
> 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
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: [email protected] 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
