[Pacemaker] constraint colocation or resource group

Kristoffer Grönlund kgronlund at suse.com
Thu Jan 2 10:15:30 EST 2014

On Thu, 2 Jan 2014 09:49:40 -0500
Luc Paulin <paulinster at gmail.com> wrote:

> I am trying figure out in which case I should be using a constraint
> colocation or the resource group. At the end it look that both will
> result in the same result, the resource will be running on the same
> host.
> As an example I am currently configuring a two node firewall.
> Therefore the only resource that will need to be running are VIP,
> BGP/Routing service, Firewall, IPSec/VPN.
> So which of the 2 commands is preferred to be use to have all service
> running on the same server.


I think the appropriate constraint in this case is a colocation. A
group implies other constraints on the resources as well, for example
if one of the resources fails, other resources appearing after it in
the group will also be stopped. A colocation constraints only says that
the resources should be placed on a particular node.

However, if, for example, the Firewall depends on the VIP being started
before it starts, you will need either an order constraint as well, or
to use a group.

> Thanx!
> --
>                          !!!!!
>                        ( o o )
>  --------------oOO----(_)----OOo--------------
>    Luc Paulin
>    email: paulinster(at)gmail.com
>    Skype: paulinster

// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund at suse.com

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list