[Pacemaker] Convenience Groups - WAS Re: [Linux-HA] Unordered groups (was Re: Is 'resource_set' still experimental?)

Andrew Beekhof andrew at beekhof.net
Thu Apr 19 20:21:38 EDT 2012

On Fri, Apr 20, 2012 at 7:41 AM, Vladislav Bogdanov
<bubble at hoster-ok.com> wrote:
> 19.04.2012 20:48, David Vossel wrote:
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Alan Robertson" <alanr at unix.sh>
>>> To: pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org, "Andrew Beekhof" <andrew at beekhof.net>
>>> Cc: "Dejan Muhamedagic" <dejan at hello-penguin.com>
>>> Sent: Thursday, April 19, 2012 10:22:48 AM
>>> Subject: [Pacemaker] Convenience Groups - WAS Re: [Linux-HA] Unordered groups (was Re: Is 'resource_set' still
>>> experimental?)
>>> Hi Andrew,
>>> I'm currently working on a fairly large cluster with lots of
>>> resources
>>> related to attached hardware.  There are 59 of these things and 24 of
>>> those things and so on and each of them has its own resource to deal
>>> with the the "things".  They are not clones, and can't easily be made
>>> clones.
>>> I would like to be able to easily say "shut down all the resources
>>> that
>>> manage this kind of thing".    The solution that occurs to me most
>>> obviously is one you would likely call a "double abomination" ;-) -
>>> an
>>> unordered and un-colocated group.  It seems a safe assumption that
>>> this
>>> would not be a good path to pursue given your statements from last
>>> year...
>>> What would you suggest instead?
>> This might be a terrible idea, but this is the first thing that came to mind.
>> What if you made a Dummy resource as a sort of control switch for starting/stopping each "group" of resources that control a "thing".  The resource groups wouldn't actually be defined as resource groups, but instead would be defined by order constraints that force a set of resources to start or stop when the Dummy control resource starts/stops.
>> So, something like this...
>> Dummy resource D1
>> thing resource T1
>> thing resource T2
>> - If you start D1 then T1 and T2 can start.
>> - If you stop D1, then T1 and T2 have to stop.
>> - If you flip D1 back on, then T1 and T2 start again.
>> order set start (D1) then start (T1 and T2)
> But, when pacemaker decides to move Dummy to another node, the whole
> stack will be restarted, even if Dummy is configured with allow_migration.
> I solved this problem for myself with RA which manages cluster ticket,
> and other resources depend on that ticket, exploiting it as a cluster
> attribute.

I like this approach.
Why the resource for granting/revoking the ticket though?
I'd have thought it would be just as easy to manually grant/revoke the
ticket as it would be to start/stop the fake resource.

> This solution works for me with post-1.1.7 pacemaker (somewhere near the
> current master branch).
> Best,
> Vladislav
> _______________________________________________
> 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

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list