[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: Unexpected Resource movement after failover

Fri Oct 14 11:56:31 UTC 2016

Hi,

Thank you for the responses so far.
I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in
resource movement that I am analyzing.

Thinking further on this, why doesn't "*a not with b" does not imply "b not
with a"?*
Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"?

Can someone confirm that colocation is required to be configured both ways?

-Thanks
Nikhil

On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <bubble at hoster-ok.com>
wrote:

> On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl <
> Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >>>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com> schrieb am 13.10.2016 um
> >16:43 in
> >Nachricht
> ><CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg at mail.gmail.com>:
> >> Ulrich,
> >>
> >> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6
> >> constraints, right?
> >>
> >>      [,1]   [,2]   [,3]   [,4]   [,5]  [,6]
> >> [1,] "A"  "A"  "A"    "B"   "B"    "C"
> >> [2,] "B"  "C"  "D"   "C"  "D"    "D"
> >
> >Sorry for my confusion. As Andrei Borzenkovsaid in
> ><CAA91j0W+epAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ+g at mail.gmail.com>
> >you probably have to add (A, B) _and_ (B, A)! Thinking about it, I
> >wonder whether an easier solution would be using "utilization": If
> >every node has one token to give, and every resource needs on token, no
> >two resources will run on one node. Sounds like an easier solution to
> >me.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Ulrich
> >
> >
> >>
> >> I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as
> >> -infinity, then the same applies for R2 with R1 score as -infinity
> >(don't
> >> have to configure it explicitly).
> >> I am not having a problem of multiple resources getting schedule on
> >the
> >> same node. Rather, one working resource is unnecessarily getting
> >relocated.
> >>
> >> -Thanks
> >> Nikhil
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ulrich Windl <
> >> Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi!
> >>>
> >>> Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of your
> >5
> >>> resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R):
> >>>
> >>>      [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]
> >>> [1,] "A"  "A"  "A"  "A"  "B"  "B"  "B"  "C"  "C"  "D"
> >>> [2,] "B"  "C"  "D"  "E"  "C"  "D"  "E"  "D"  "E"  "E"
> >>>
> >>> Ulrich
> >>>
> >>> >>> Nikhil Utane <nikhil.subscribed at gmail.com> schrieb am 13.10.2016
> >um
> >>> 15:59 in
> >>> Nachricht
> >>>
> ><CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi+Pn7Oj_A at mail.gmail.com>:
> >>> > Hi,
> >>> >
> >>> > I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.
> >>> > I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be
> >>> co-located.
> >>> > I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting
> >the
> >>> > resource on the failed node would be migrated to the 5th waiting
> >node
> >>> (that
> >>> > is not running any resource).
> >>> > However what happened was the failed node resource was started on
> >another
> >>> > active node (after stopping it's existing resource) and that
> >node's
> >>> > resource was moved to the waiting node.
> >>> >
> >>> > What could I be doing wrong?
> >>> >
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-have-watchdog" value="true"
> >>> > name="have-watchdog"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-dc-version"
> >value="1.1.14-5a6cdd1"
> >>> > name="dc-version"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-cluster-infrastructure"
> >>> value="corosync"
> >>> > name="cluster-infrastructure"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-stonith-enabled" value="false"
> >>> > name="stonith-enabled"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-no-quorum-policy" value="ignore"
> >>> > name="no-quorum-policy"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-default-action-timeout"
> >value="240"
> >>> > name="default-action-timeout"/>
> >>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-symmetric-cluster" value="false"
> >>> > name="symmetric-cluster"/>
> >>> >
> >>> > # pcs constraint
> >>> > Location Constraints:
> >>> >   Resource: cu_2
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >   Resource: cu_3
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >   Resource: cu_4
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >   Resource: cu_5
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> >     Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)
> >>> > Ordering Constraints:
> >>> > Colocation Constraints:
> >>> >   cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >   cu_4 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >   cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >   cu_5 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >   cu_5 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >   cu_5 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)
> >>> >
> >>> > -Thanks
> >>> > Nikhil
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> >>> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >>>
> >>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> >>> Getting started:
> >http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> >>> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
> >>>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> >http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
> >Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> >Getting started:
> >http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> >Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
> Hi,
>
> use of utilization (balanced strategy) has one caveat: resources are not
> moved just because of utilization of one node is less, when nodes have the
> same allocation score for the resource.
> So, after the simultaneus outage of two nodes in a 5-node cluster, it may
> appear that one node runs two resources and two recovered nodes run nothing.
>
> Original 'utilization' strategy only limits resource placement, it is not
> considered when choosing a node for a resource.
>
> Vladislav
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list: Users at clusterlabs.org
> http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.clusterlabs.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20161014/64c909ce/attachment.htm>