florian.haas at linbit
Jul 11, 2011, 8:16 AM
Post #1 of 3
On 2011-07-11 17:08, Ulrich Windl wrote:
Re: [Linux-HA] Antw: Re: Q: What type of dependency is "colocation"?
>>>> Florian Haas <florian.haas [at] linbit> schrieb am 11.07.2011 um 16:46 in
> Nachricht <4E1B0CD4.80003 [at] linbit>:
>> On 2011-07-11 15:14, Ulrich Windl wrote:
>>> primitive prm_rksapr00_ping ocf:pacemaker:ping \
>>> params ... \
>> Any specific reason why you're cutting configuration parameters out?
> They are not relevant and only add water to the soup.
But they're... never mind, you'd probably interpret it as another case
of not liking your opinion.
>>> op monitor interval="300s" timeout="60" \
>>> op start interval="0" timeout="60" \
>>> utilization utl_cpu="1" utl_ram="1" \
>>> meta priority="2050" target-role="Started"
>>> group grp_rksapr00 prm_rksapr00_ip_1 ... \
>> Here too?
> It is not important how many members the group has, right?
>>> meta priority="2000" resource-stickiness="100000"
>>> order ord_rksapr00_ping_after_saprouter inf: grp_rksapr00 prm_rksapr00_ping
>>> colocation col_rksapr00_saprouter_ping inf: grp_rksapr00 prm_rksapr00_ping
>> Why is the ping resource not cloned, and what is this colocation
>> supposed to achieve?
> The ping should actually just ping to keep a network connection alive. The other is just a side effect. The ping should use the source IP address (not possible with standard Linux ping)
What exactly isn't possible with "standard Linux ping"? What about "ping
> that prm_rksapr00_ip_1 provides. Originally I wanted to write an RA for it, bit the pingd seems to do what I need.
Does "crm ra info ocf:heartbeat:IPsrcaddr" not help at all?
>>> OK, so it seems you implemented a strange kind of c "colocation" that is
>> part of co-location, and part of "depends_on". I'd like to have clean and
>> separate implementations:
>> Excellent. Send a patch!
> It's like Christmas wishes: we all have to wait until Christmas. ;-)
No, you'll have to wait until someone implements the functionality you
want. Or you implement it yourself.
>>> For co-location: If "A is near B", obviously "B is near A", so co-location is
>> symmetric by nature.
>>> For "depends_on": if "A depends_on B" it makes not much sense if "B
>> depends_on A" (is this antisymmetric?)
>>> Your implementation mixed both, a symmetric and a non-symmetric relation.
>> Naturally this causes problems.
>> Out of curiosity, to whom does the possessive pronoun apply?
> Plural meaning: Those whose names I don't know, but are responsible for the implementation.
>>> Well actually I feel you just don't like any opinion others than your own.
>> Says exactly who, about whom?
> OK, singular this time: The author of the message.
It takes one to know one, doesn't it?