[Pacemaker] N+1 and equal priority resource groups

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 26 Apr 2014, at 2:20 am, Igal Baevsky <ibaevsky at marketfactory.com> wrote:

> Andrew Beekhof <andrew at ...> writes:
> 
>> 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?
>> 
> 
> group-1 should only be able to end up on node-2 or node-3 if no other group 
> is running 
> on them and node-4 is unavailable (down or taken by group-2/3).

So:

node-2 fails, group-2 moves to node-4
node-2 returns
node-1 fails, group-1 moves to node-2

and no admin intervention in between.


The more common use of N+1 is where the +1 is a shared failover.  
So resources are only moving between their primary node and the +1.

I probably could make your use-case work, but its unlikely to happen for 1.1.12

I've filed it as a feature request for future reference: 

   http://bugs.clusterlabs.org/show_bug.cgi?id=5209


> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 841 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/attachments/20140428/202094ad/attachment-0003.sig>