[ClusterLabs] Colocation rule with vip and ms master

[Ken Gaillot]

On Mon, 2017-10-30 at 16:46 +0000, Norberto Lopes wrote:
> Apologies but I'm not following. I'm probably misunderstanding
> something.
> 
> From what I could gather from https://clusterlabs.org/doc/en-US/Pacem
> aker/1.1/html/Pacemaker_Explained/_mandatory_placement.html I can't
> follow the subtle difference between the two on a running cluster. As
> an example: If backupVIP is already in node A and postgresMS:Master
> in node B, and postgresMS:Master dies, in my case, postgresMS:Master
> never gets promoted in node C. But from the -inf rule it should be
> able to?
> 
> Any insights into this would be greatly appreciated.

I don't see from this why that's happening; it may be related to other
parts of the configuration. If you can attach your CIB (cibadmin -Q),
that might help.

> 
> On Fri, 27 Oct 2017 at 06:41 Ferenc Wágner <wferi at niif.hu> wrote:
> > Norberto Lopes <nlopes.ml at gmail.com> writes:
> > 
> > > colocation backup-vip-not-with-master -inf: backupVIP
> > postgresMS:Master
> > > colocation backup-vip-not-with-master inf: backupVIP
> > postgresMS:Slave
>
> > >
> > > Basically what's occurring in my cluster is that the first rule
> > stops the
> > > Sync node from being promoted if the Master ever dies. The second
> > doesn't
> > > but I can't quite follow why.
> > 
> > Getting a score of -inf means that the resource won't run.  On the
> > other
> > hand, (+)inf just means "strongest" preference.
> > --
> > Regards,
> > Feri
-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>