[ClusterLabs] Antw: Re: Antw: [EXT] Re: Sub‑clusters / super‑clusters - working :)

[kgaillot at redhat.com]

On Fri, 2021-08-06 at 15:48 +0200, Ulrich Windl wrote:
> > > > Andrei Borzenkov <arvidjaar at gmail.com> schrieb am 06.08.2021 um
> > > > 15:14 in
> Nachricht
> <CAA91j0V2zeZd75ZAY+2QvEPDBYAxucRSWDgC3OPgoPKxBHFi6g at mail.gmail.com>:
> > On Fri, Aug 6, 2021 at 3:47 PM Ulrich Windl
> > <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > > Antony Stone <Antony.Stone at ha.open.source.it> schrieb am
> > > > > > 06.08.2021 um
> > > 14:41 in
> > > Nachricht <202108061441.59936.Antony.Stone at ha.open.source.it>:
> > > ...
> > > >       location pref_A GroupA rule ‑inf: site ne cityA
> > > >       location pref_B GroupB rule ‑inf: site ne cityB
> > > 
> > > I'm wondering whether the first is equivalentto
> > > location pref_A GroupA rule inf: site eq cityA
> > > 
> > 
> > No, it is not. The original constraint prohibits running resources
> > anywhere except cityA even if cityA is not available; your version
> > allows it if cityA is not available.
> 
> ?? If a resource must run on "cityA" and cityA is unavailable, then
> will it
> run elsewhere?

-inf = must not
+inf != must

-- 
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>