[Pacemaker] A question and demand to a resource placement strategy function
Andrew Beekhof
andrew at beekhof.net
Mon Jul 18 21:42:49 EDT 2011
This should also now be fixed in:
http://hg.clusterlabs.org/pacemaker/devel/rev/960a7e3da680
On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:43 PM, Yuusuke IIDA <iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp> wrote:
> Hi, Andrew
>
> I know that there is the next processing in "pengine".
>
> # cat -n pengine/utils.c
> [snip]
> 322 /* now try to balance resources across the cluster */
> 323 if(node1->details->num_resources
> 324 < node2->details->num_resources) {
> 325 do_crm_log_unlikely(level, "%s (%d) < %s (%d) : resources",
> 326 node1->details->uname,
> node1->details->num_resources,
> 327 node2->details->uname,
> node2->details->num_resources);
> 328 return -1;
> 329
> 330 } else if(node1->details->num_resources
> 331 > node2->details->num_resources) {
> 332 do_crm_log_unlikely(level, "%s (%d) > %s (%d) : resources",
> 333 node1->details->uname,
> node1->details->num_resources,
> 334 node2->details->uname,
> node2->details->num_resources);
> 335 return 1;
> 336 }
>
> This processing is a thing to give priority to a node with a little number
> of the resources.
> And this processing acts regardless of setting of "placement-strategy".
> I understand so it.
>
> This processing works expected at the time of next.
> A turn of the trouble of resources : rsc1 -> rsc2 -> rsc3
>
> Online: [ act1 act2 act3 sby2 sby1 ]
>
> Full list of resources:
>
> rsc1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
> rsc2 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby2
> rsc3 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
>
> Failed actions:
> rsc1_monitor_5000 (node=act1, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
> rsc2_monitor_5000 (node=act2, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
> rsc3_monitor_5000 (node=act3, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
>
> However , at the time of next , I do not work as expected.(this is a
> problem)
> A turn of the trouble of resources : rsc3 -> rsc2 -> rsc1
>
> Online: [ act1 act2 act3 sby2 sby1 ]
>
> Full list of resources:
>
> rsc1 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
> rsc2 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
> rsc3 (ocf::pacemaker:Dummy): Started sby1
>
> Failed actions:
> rsc1_monitor_5000 (node=act1, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
> rsc2_monitor_5000 (node=act2, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
> rsc3_monitor_5000 (node=act3, call=6, rc=7, status=complete): not running
>
> This problem is improved by the correction that Yan made, but it is not
> applied to "default" setting.
> I want to apply this correction to "default" setting.
> And I think that I want Pacemaker-1.0 to apply the same correction.
>
> However , I want to think once again because there are the problem of group
> resources reporting according to the present and the problem of colocation
> which I do not yet report after including those corrections.
>
> I attach crm_report of the problem work.
>
> Best Regards,
> Yuusuke IIDA
>
> (2011/07/05 13:34), Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 4:59 PM, Gao,Yan<ygao at novell.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/01/11 18:51, Yuusuke IIDA wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi, Yan
>>>>
>>>> An answer becomes slow, and really I'm sorry.
>>>>
>>>> (2011/05/13 15:06), Gao,Yan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that you think the improvement for the non-default
>>>>> placement strategy makes sense to the "default" too. Though the
>>>>> "default" is somewhat intended not to be affected by any "placement
>>>>> strategy" so that the behaviors of existing pengine test cases and
>>>>> users' deployments remain unchanged.
>>>>
>>>> I think that a function dispersed with the number of the start of the
>>>> resource has a problem at the time of "default" setting.
>>>>
>>>> This problem is the Pacemaker-1.0 series, but does the same movement.
>>>> If it could be settled by this correction, I thought a correction to be
>>>> applicable in Pacemaker-1.0.
>>>>
>>>> Should not this problem be revised?
>>>
>>> This would affect dozens of existing regression tests, although most of
>>> the changes are just the scores of clone instances, which are due to
>>> different resource allocating orders. Given 1.0 is in such a maintenance
>>> state, I'm not sure we should do that for 1.0.
>>>
>>> Andrew, what do you think about it? Perhaps we should fix the
>>> resource-number-balancing for "default" strategy in 1.1 at least?
>>
>> I think for 1.1 we can do something, I'd just like to understand the
>> the implications of the patch.
>> It would help if there was a testcase that illustrated the negative
>> behaviour.
>>
>> Is it necessary that both parts of the old if-block are always run?
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For "utilization" strategy, load-balancing is still done based on the
>>>>> number of resources allocated to a node. That might be a choice.
>>>>>
>>>> When I do not set capacity by "utilization" setting in Pacemaker-1.1 ,
>>>> expected movement is possible!
>>>>
>>>> Best Regards,
>>>> Yuusuke IIDA
>>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Yan
>>> --
>>> Gao,Yan<ygao at novell.com>
>>> Software Engineer
>>> China Server Team, SUSE.
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------
> METRO SYSTEMS CO., LTD
>
> Yuusuke Iida
> Mail: iidayuus at intellilink.co.jp
> ----------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>
>
More information about the Pacemaker
mailing list