08.08.2018 07:36, Andrei Borzenkov пишет: > 06.08.2018 20:07, Devin A. Bougie пишет: >> What is the best way to make sure pacemaker doesn’t attempt to recover or >> restart a resource if a resource it depends on is not started? >> >> For example, we have two dummy resources that simply sleep - master_sleep >> and slave_sleep. We then have a non-symmetrical ordering constraint that >> ensures master_sleep is started before slave_sleep: >> start master_sleep then start slave_sleep (kind:Mandatory) >> (non-symmetrical) >> >> This works as expected when both resources are disabled. If we enable >> slave_sleep first, it won’t actually start until after master_sleep if >> enabled and started. >> >> However, if slave_sleep dies when master_sleep is disabled and stopped, >> pacemaker recovers and restarts slave_sleep. For example: >> - enable master_sleep, and wait for it to start >> - enable slave_sleep, and wait for it to start >> - disable master_sleep, and wait for it to stop > > While I can answer your question
s/can/can not/ Sorry :) > (although gut feeling is that behavior > is expected) - what is your final goal? If I interpret documentation > correctly, the configuration with master target state "stop" and slave > target state "start" makes it impossible to start slave at all. So while > it may be interesting exercise, what are you trying to achieve at the end? > >> - kill the slave_sleep process (or, “pcs resource debug-stop slave_sleep”) >> - pacemaker recovers and restarts slave_sleep, even though master_sleep is >> disabled and stopped. >> > > Actually my first reaction was "why slave was left started when master > was stopped" :) If you do not question *this*, I'd say this behavior is > logically correct - pacemaker tries to maintain status quo, and target > state is "slave running" so it just tries to keep it running. > > Whether slave should have been stopped when master had been stopped is > interesting question; documentation is not exactly clear on semantic of > Mandatory ordering constraints. > >> Is this the expected behavior, and is there any way to change it? I’m happy >> to provide logs if that would help. >> >> Many thanks, >> Devin >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list: [email protected] >> https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org >> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf >> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org >> > _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
