[Pacemaker] Problem when relating it to colocation under placement-strategy environment

Gao,Yan ygao at novell.com
Fri Jul 15 02:30:44 EDT 2011

On 07/15/11 14:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 15, 2011 at 3:16 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at novell.com> wrote:
>> On 07/15/11 10:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 4:28 PM, Gao,Yan <ygao at novell.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> Sorry for the delay. I've been thinking about it...
>>>> On 07/14/11 12:21, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>>>> This loop looks wrong
>>>>> +         for(gIter2 = resource1->rsc_cons; gIter2 != NULL; gIter2 = gIter2->next) {
>>>>> You're very dependant on the number and order of constraints because
>>>>> of the way resource1_weight is being updated.
>>>>> AFAICS, this only works if there is a single non INFINITY constraint.
>>>> Indeed. We can hardly tell what exactly the resources' scores are before
>>>> allocating resources. The scores would be merged/updated during
>>>> allocating. That means that we can hardly tell what the best allocating
>>>> order is before allocating resources. What "sort_rsc_process_order()"
>>>> does is just to predict a relatively ideal order.
>>>>> I'll take a look at the before and after results tomorrow and see if
>>>>> there might be a better way to achieve the same results.
>>>> That would be great. Thanks!
>>> Is there a bug I can reference in the commit message?
>> http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2613
>> http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2619
> Excellent, both are now fixed. I'll commit on Monday.
Great! Looking forward to seeing how you did that. :-)

> Btw, you should join on irc - especially since we're in almost the
> same TZ now :-)
Yeah, it's nice. Actually I'm on it :-)

Gao,Yan <ygao at suse.com>
Software Engineer
China Server Team, SUSE.

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list