[ClusterLabs] different start/stop order

[Ken Gaillot]

On Wed, 2017-11-01 at 09:44 +0100, Stefan Krueger wrote:
> Hello Ken,
> 
> thanks for you help, at the moment it looks like this (its not
> final):
> crm(live)# conf sho
> node 1084815873: zfs-serv1
> node 1084815874: zfs-serv2
> primitive HA_IP-Serv1 IPaddr2 \
>         params ip=172.16.101.70 cidr_netmask=16 \
>         op monitor interval=20 timeout=30 on-fail=restart nic=bond0 \
>         meta target-role=Started
> primitive HA_IP-Serv2 IPaddr2 \
>         params ip=172.16.101.74 cidr_netmask=16 \
>         op monitor interval=10s nic=bond0
> primitive nc_storage ZFS \
>         params pool=nc_storage importargs="-d /dev/disk/by-
> partlabel/"
> primitive nfs-serv1 systemd:nfs-server
> primitive nfs-serv2 systemd:nfs-server
> group compl_zfs-serv2 nfs-serv2 HA_IP-Serv2
> location cli-prefer-HA_IP-Serv1 HA_IP-Serv1 role=Started inf: zfs-
> serv1
> location cli-prefer-HA_IP-Serv2 compl_zfs-serv2 role=Started inf:
> zfs-serv2
> location cli-prefer-compl_zfs-serv1 nc_storage role=Started inf: zfs-
> serv1
> location cli-prefer-nc_storage nc_storage role=Started inf: zfs-serv1

FYI constraints that start with "cli-" were added automatically by
command-line move/ban commands. They will stay in place (and effective)
until you clear them.

> colocation compl_zfs-serv1 +inf: HA_IP-Serv1 nc_storage nfs-serv1
> order start_serv1 nfs-serv1:start nc_storage:start HA_IP-Serv1:start
> symmetrical=false
> order stop_serv1 HA_IP-Serv1:stop nfs-serv1:stop nc_storage:stop
> symmetrical=false

I'm not expert with crm shell, so I could be wrong, but I thought that
"colocation" and "order" lines could only list two resources. Otherwise
this looks like it will do what you wanted.

> property cib-bootstrap-options: \
>         have-watchdog=false \
>         dc-version=1.1.16-94ff4df \
>         cluster-infrastructure=corosync \
>         cluster-name=debian \
>         no-quorum-policy=ignore \
>         default-resource-stickiness=100 \
>         stonith-enabled=false \
>         last-lrm-refresh=1507890181
> 
> is that ok? the manual failover looks good.
> 
> best regards
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>