<div dir="ltr">Thanks Ken.<div>I will give it a shot.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html">http://oss.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/pacemaker/2011-August/011271.html</a><br></div><div>On this thread, if I interpret it correctly, his problem was solved when he swapped the anti-location constraint </div><div><br></div><div>From (mapping to my example)</div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_2 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_3 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_2 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">To</span></div><div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_2 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)</span><br></div></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Do you think that would make any difference? The way you explained it, sounds to me it might.</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><br></span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">-Regards</span></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px">Nikhil</span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 11:36 PM, Ken Gaillot <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kgaillot@redhat.com" target="_blank">kgaillot@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">On 10/17/2016 09:55 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:<br>
> I see these prints.<br>
><br>
> pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_4: Rolling back scores from cu_3<br>
> pengine: debug: native_assign_node:Assigning Redun_CU4_Wb30 to cu_4<br>
> pengine: info: rsc_merge_weights:cu_3: Rolling back scores from cu_2<br>
> pengine: debug: native_assign_node:Assigning Redund_CU5_WB30 to cu_3<br>
><br>
> Looks like rolling back the scores is causing the new decision to<br>
> relocate the resources.<br>
> Am I using the scores incorrectly?<br>
<br>
</span>No, I think this is expected.<br>
<br>
Your anti-colocation constraints place cu_2 and cu_3 relative to cu_4,<br>
so that means the cluster will place cu_4 first if possible, before<br>
deciding where the others should go. Similarly, cu_2 has a constraint<br>
relative to cu_3, so cu_3 gets placed next, and cu_2 is the one left out.<br>
<br>
The anti-colocation scores of -INFINITY outweigh the stickiness of 100.<br>
I'm not sure whether setting stickiness to INFINITY would change<br>
anything; hopefully, it would stop cu_3 from moving, but cu_2 would<br>
still be stopped.<br>
<br>
I don't see a good way around this. The cluster has to place some<br>
resource first, in order to know not to place some other resource on the<br>
same node. I don't think there's a way to make them "equal", because<br>
then none of them could be placed to begin with -- unless you went with<br>
utilization attributes, as someone else suggested, with<br>
placement-strategy=balanced:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html-single/Pacemaker_Explained/index.html#idm140521708557280" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-<wbr>US/Pacemaker/1.1-pcs/html-<wbr>single/Pacemaker_Explained/<wbr>index.html#idm140521708557280</a><br>
<span class=""><br>
><br>
> [root@Redund_CU5_WB30 root]# pcs constraint<br>
> Location Constraints:<br>
> Resource: cu_2<br>
> Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Resource: cu_3<br>
> Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Resource: cu_4<br>
> Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> Ordering Constraints:<br>
> Colocation Constraints:<br>
> cu_2 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> cu_3 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> cu_2 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 8:16 PM, Nikhil Utane<br>
</span><span class="">> <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This is driving me insane.<br>
><br>
> This is how the resources were started. Redund_CU1_WB30 was the DC<br>
> which I rebooted.<br>
> cu_4(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Started Redund_CU1_WB30<br>
> cu_2(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Started Redund_CU5_WB30<br>
</span>> cu_3(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Started Redun_CU4_Wb30<br>
<span class="">><br>
> Since the standby node was not UP. I was expecting resource cu_4 to<br>
> be waiting to be scheduled.<br>
> But then it re-arranged everything as below.<br>
> cu_4(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Started Redun_CU4_Wb30<br>
> cu_2(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Stopped<br>
</span>> cu_3(ocf::redundancy:<wbr>RedundancyRA):Started Redund_CU5_WB30<br>
<span class="">><br>
> There is not much information available in the logs on new DC. It<br>
> just shows what it has decided to do but nothing to suggest why it<br>
> did it that way.<br>
><br>
> notice: Start cu_4(Redun_CU4_Wb30)<br>
> notice: Stop cu_2(Redund_CU5_WB30)<br>
</span>> notice: Move cu_3(Started Redun_CU4_Wb30 -> Redund_CU5_WB30)<br>
<span class="">><br>
> I have default stickiness set to 100 which is higher than any score<br>
> that I have configured.<br>
> I have migration_threshold set to 1. Should I bump that up instead?<br>
><br>
> -Thanks<br>
> Nikhil<br>
><br>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Ken Gaillot <<a href="mailto:kgaillot@redhat.com">kgaillot@redhat.com</a><br>
</span><div><div class="h5">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:kgaillot@redhat.com">kgaillot@redhat.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> On 10/14/2016 06:56 AM, Nikhil Utane wrote:<br>
> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > Thank you for the responses so far.<br>
> > I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in<br>
> > resource movement that I am analyzing.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thinking further on this, why doesn't "/a not with b" does not<br>
> imply "b<br>
> > not with a"?/<br>
> > Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"?<br>
> ><br>
> > Can someone confirm that colocation is required to be configured both ways?<br>
><br>
> The anti-colocation should only be defined one-way. Otherwise,<br>
> you get a<br>
> dependency loop (as seen in logs you showed elsewhere).<br>
><br>
> The one-way constraint is enough to keep the resources apart.<br>
> However,<br>
> the question is whether the cluster might move resources around<br>
> unnecessarily.<br>
><br>
> For example, "A not with B" means that the cluster will place B<br>
> first,<br>
> then place A somewhere else. So, if B's node fails, can the cluster<br>
> decide that A's node is now the best place for B, and move A to<br>
> a free<br>
> node, rather than simply start B on the free node?<br>
><br>
> The cluster does take dependencies into account when placing a<br>
> resource,<br>
> so I would hope that wouldn't happen. But I'm not sure. Having some<br>
> stickiness might help, so that A has some preference against moving.<br>
><br>
> > -Thanks<br>
> > Nikhil<br>
> ><br>
> > /<br>
> > /<br>
> ><br>
> > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:bubble@hoster-ok.com">bubble@hoster-ok.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bubble@hoster-ok.com">bubble@hoster-ok.com</a>><br>
</div></div><span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bubble@hoster-ok.com">bubble@hoster-ok.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:bubble@hoster-ok.com">bubble@hoster-ok.com</a>>><wbr>> wrote:<br>
> ><br>
> > On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl<br>
> > <<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>><br>
</span>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a><br>
<span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> > >>>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
</span>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a><br>
<span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a>>>> schrieb am 13.10.2016 um<br>
> > >16:43 in<br>
> > >Nachricht<br>
> > ><<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXo<wbr>vwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHS<wbr>bQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
> ><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHS<wbr>bQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a><br>
<span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHS<wbr>bQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>>>>:<br>
> > >> Ulrich,<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6<br>
> > >> constraints, right?<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6]<br>
> > >> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "C"<br>
> > >> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "C" "D" "D"<br>
> > ><br>
> > >Sorry for my confusion. As Andrei Borzenkovsaid in<br>
> > ><<a href="mailto:CAA91j0W%2BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%2Bg@mail.gmail.com">CAA91j0W+epAHFLg9u6VX_<wbr>X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ+g@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAA91j0W%252BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%252Bg@mail.gmail.com">CAA91j0W%<wbr>2BepAHFLg9u6VX_<wbr>X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%<wbr>2Bg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
> ><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAA91j0W%252BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%252Bg@mail.gmail.com">CAA91j0W%<wbr>2BepAHFLg9u6VX_<wbr>X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%<wbr>2Bg@mail.gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAA91j0W%25252BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%25252Bg@mail.gmail.com">CAA91j0W%<wbr>252BepAHFLg9u6VX_<wbr>X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%<wbr>252Bg@mail.gmail.com</a>>>><br>
<span class="">> > >you probably have to add (A, B) _and_ (B, A)! Thinking about it, I<br>
> > >wonder whether an easier solution would be using "utilization": If<br>
> > >every node has one token to give, and every resource needs on token, no<br>
> > >two resources will run on one node. Sounds like an easier solution to<br>
> > >me.<br>
> > ><br>
> > >Regards,<br>
> > >Ulrich<br>
> > ><br>
> > ><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as<br>
> > >> -infinity, then the same applies for R2 with R1 score as -infinity<br>
> > >(don't<br>
> > >> have to configure it explicitly).<br>
> > >> I am not having a problem of multiple resources getting schedule on<br>
> > >the<br>
> > >> same node. Rather, one working resource is unnecessarily getting<br>
> > >relocated.<br>
> > >><br>
> > >> -Thanks<br>
> > >> Nikhil<br>
> > >><br>
> > >><br>
> > >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ulrich Windl <<br>
> > >> <a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>><br>
</span>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a><br>
<span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>>>> wrote:<br>
> > >><br>
> > >>> Hi!<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of your<br>
> > >5<br>
> > >>> resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R):<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]<br>
> > >>> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "B" "C" "C" "D"<br>
> > >>> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "E" "C" "D" "E" "D" "E" "E"<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> Ulrich<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>> >>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a>><br>
</span>> > <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a><br>
<span class="">> <mailto:<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@<wbr>gmail.com</a>>>> schrieb am 13.10.2016<br>
> > >um<br>
> > >>> 15:59 in<br>
> > >>> Nachricht<br>
> > >>><br>
> > ><<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%2BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUz<wbr>yczQbZEzUzpaJxi+Pn7Oj_A@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%252BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZ<wbr>CAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%2BPn7Oj_<wbr>A@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
> ><br>
</span>> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%252BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZ<wbr>CAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%2BPn7Oj_<wbr>A@mail.gmail.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%25252BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZ<wbr>CAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%<wbr>252BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com</a>>>>:<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> > >>> > Hi,<br>
> > >>> ><br>
> > >>> > I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.<br>
> > >>> > I have configured constraint such that no two<br>
> resources can be<br>
> > >>> co-located.<br>
> > >>> > I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I<br>
> was expecting<br>
> > >the<br>
> > >>> > resource on the failed node would be migrated to the<br>
> 5th waiting<br>
> > >node<br>
> > >>> (that<br>
> > >>> > is not running any resource).<br>
> > >>> > However what happened was the failed node resource<br>
> was started on<br>
> > >another<br>
> > >>> > active node (after stopping it's existing resource)<br>
> and that<br>
> > >node's<br>
> > >>> > resource was moved to the waiting node.<br>
> > >>> ><br>
> > >>> > What could I be doing wrong?<br>
> > >>> ><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>have-watchdog"<br>
> value="true"<br>
> > >>> > name="have-watchdog"/><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-dc-<wbr>version"<br>
> > >value="1.1.14-5a6cdd1"<br>
> > >>> > name="dc-version"/><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair<br>
> id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>cluster-infrastructure"<br>
> > >>> value="corosync"<br>
> > >>> > name="cluster-infrastructure"/<wbr>><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>stonith-enabled"<br>
> value="false"<br>
> > >>> > name="stonith-enabled"/><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-no-<wbr>quorum-policy"<br>
> value="ignore"<br>
> > >>> > name="no-quorum-policy"/><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair<br>
> id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>default-action-timeout"<br>
> > >value="240"<br>
> > >>> > name="default-action-timeout"/<wbr>><br>
> > >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>symmetric-cluster"<br>
> value="false"<br>
> > >>> > name="symmetric-cluster"/><br>
> > >>> ><br>
> > >>> > # pcs constraint<br>
> > >>> > Location Constraints:<br>
> > >>> > Resource: cu_2<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Resource: cu_3<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Resource: cu_4<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Resource: cu_5<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
> > >>> > Ordering Constraints:<br>
> > >>> > Colocation Constraints:<br>
> > >>> > cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> > cu_4 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> > cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> > cu_5 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> > cu_5 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> > cu_5 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
> > >>> ><br>
> > >>> > -Thanks<br>
> > >>> > Nikhil<br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> > >>><br>
> ><br>
</div></div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">> > Hi,<br>
> ><br>
> > use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat:<br>
> resources are<br>
> > not moved just because of utilization of one node is less,<br>
> when<br>
> > nodes have the same allocation score for the resource.<br>
> > So, after the simultaneus outage of two nodes in a 5-node<br>
> cluster,<br>
> > it may appear that one node runs two resources and two<br>
> recovered<br>
> > nodes run nothing.<br>
> ><br>
> > Original 'utilization' strategy only limits resource<br>
> placement, it<br>
> > is not considered when choosing a node for a resource.<br>
> ><br>
> > Vladislav<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>