<div dir="ltr">Hi,<div><br></div><div>Thank you for the responses so far.</div><div>I added reverse colocation as well. However seeing some other issue in resource movement that I am analyzing.</div><div><br></div><div>Thinking further on this, why doesn't "<i style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">a not with b" does not imply "b not with a"?</span></i></div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px">Coz wouldn't putting "b with a" violate "a not with b"?</span></span></div><div><br></div><div>Can someone confirm that colocation is required to be configured both ways?</div><div><br></div><div>-Thanks</div><div>Nikhil</div><div><span style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></span></div><div><i style="color:rgb(80,0,80);font-size:12.8px"><span style="font-size:12.8px"><br></span></i></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 1:09 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bubble@hoster-ok.com" target="_blank">bubble@hoster-ok.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On October 14, 2016 10:13:17 AM GMT+03:00, Ulrich Windl <<a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a>> schrieb am 13.10.2016 um<br>
>16:43 in<br>
>Nachricht<br>
><<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXovwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJUbPucnBGXroHkHSbQ0LXo<wbr>vwsLFPkUPg1R8gJqRFqM9Dg@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>> Ulrich,<br>
>><br>
>> I have 4 resources only (not 5, nodes are 5). So then I only need 6<br>
>> constraints, right?<br>
>><br>
>> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6]<br>
>> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "C"<br>
>> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "C" "D" "D"<br>
><br>
>Sorry for my confusion. As Andrei Borzenkovsaid in<br>
><<a href="mailto:CAA91j0W%2BepAHFLg9u6VX_X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ%2Bg@mail.gmail.com">CAA91j0W+epAHFLg9u6VX_<wbr>X8LgFkf9Rp55g3nocY4oZNA9BbZ+g@<wbr>mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
>you probably have to add (A, B) _and_ (B, A)! Thinking about it, I<br>
>wonder whether an easier solution would be using "utilization": If<br>
>every node has one token to give, and every resource needs on token, no<br>
>two resources will run on one node. Sounds like an easier solution to<br>
>me.<br>
><br>
>Regards,<br>
>Ulrich<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> I understand that if I configure constraint of R1 with R2 score as<br>
>> -infinity, then the same applies for R2 with R1 score as -infinity<br>
>(don't<br>
>> have to configure it explicitly).<br>
>> I am not having a problem of multiple resources getting schedule on<br>
>the<br>
>> same node. Rather, one working resource is unnecessarily getting<br>
>relocated.<br>
>><br>
>> -Thanks<br>
>> Nikhil<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 7:45 PM, Ulrich Windl <<br>
>> <a href="mailto:Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-regensburg.de">Ulrich.Windl@rz.uni-<wbr>regensburg.de</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>>> Hi!<br>
>>><br>
>>> Don't you need 10 constraints, excluding every possible pair of your<br>
>5<br>
>>> resources (named A-E here), like in this table (produced with R):<br>
>>><br>
>>> [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5] [,6] [,7] [,8] [,9] [,10]<br>
>>> [1,] "A" "A" "A" "A" "B" "B" "B" "C" "C" "D"<br>
>>> [2,] "B" "C" "D" "E" "C" "D" "E" "D" "E" "E"<br>
>>><br>
>>> Ulrich<br>
>>><br>
>>> >>> Nikhil Utane <<a href="mailto:nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com">nikhil.subscribed@gmail.com</a>> schrieb am 13.10.2016<br>
>um<br>
>>> 15:59 in<br>
>>> Nachricht<br>
>>><br>
><<a href="mailto:CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUzyczQbZEzUzpaJxi%2BPn7Oj_A@mail.gmail.com">CAGNWmJW0CWMr3bvR3L9xZCAcJUz<wbr>yczQbZEzUzpaJxi+Pn7Oj_A@mail.<wbr>gmail.com</a>>:<br>
>>> > Hi,<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > I have 5 nodes and 4 resources configured.<br>
>>> > I have configured constraint such that no two resources can be<br>
>>> co-located.<br>
>>> > I brought down a node (which happened to be DC). I was expecting<br>
>the<br>
>>> > resource on the failed node would be migrated to the 5th waiting<br>
>node<br>
>>> (that<br>
>>> > is not running any resource).<br>
>>> > However what happened was the failed node resource was started on<br>
>another<br>
>>> > active node (after stopping it's existing resource) and that<br>
>node's<br>
>>> > resource was moved to the waiting node.<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > What could I be doing wrong?<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>have-watchdog" value="true"<br>
>>> > name="have-watchdog"/><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-dc-<wbr>version"<br>
>value="1.1.14-5a6cdd1"<br>
>>> > name="dc-version"/><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>cluster-infrastructure"<br>
>>> value="corosync"<br>
>>> > name="cluster-infrastructure"/<wbr>><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>stonith-enabled" value="false"<br>
>>> > name="stonith-enabled"/><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-no-<wbr>quorum-policy" value="ignore"<br>
>>> > name="no-quorum-policy"/><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>default-action-timeout"<br>
>value="240"<br>
>>> > name="default-action-timeout"/<wbr>><br>
>>> > <nvpair id="cib-bootstrap-options-<wbr>symmetric-cluster" value="false"<br>
>>> > name="symmetric-cluster"/><br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > # pcs constraint<br>
>>> > Location Constraints:<br>
>>> > Resource: cu_2<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Resource: cu_3<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Resource: cu_4<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Resource: cu_5<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redun_CU4_Wb30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU2_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU3_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU5_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Enabled on: Redund_CU1_WB30 (score:0)<br>
>>> > Ordering Constraints:<br>
>>> > Colocation Constraints:<br>
>>> > cu_3 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> > cu_4 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> > cu_4 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> > cu_5 with cu_2 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> > cu_5 with cu_3 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> > cu_5 with cu_4 (score:-INFINITY)<br>
>>> ><br>
>>> > -Thanks<br>
>>> > Nikhil<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> ______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
>>> Users mailing list: <a href="mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org">Users@clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://clusterlabs.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>>> Getting started:<br>
><a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
>>> Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>>><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
>_____________________________<wbr>__________________<br>
>Users mailing list: <a href="mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org">Users@clusterlabs.org</a><br>
><a href="http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://clusterlabs.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
><br>
>Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
>Getting started:<br>
><a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
>Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
<br>
</div></div>Hi,<br>
<br>
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.<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Original 'utilization' strategy only limits resource placement, it is not considered when choosing a node for a resource.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Vladislav<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
Users mailing list: <a href="mailto:Users@clusterlabs.org">Users@clusterlabs.org</a><br>
<a href="http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://clusterlabs.org/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/users</a><br>
<br>
Project Home: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
Getting started: <a href="http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://www.clusterlabs.org/<wbr>doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf</a><br>
Bugs: <a href="http://bugs.clusterlabs.org" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://bugs.clusterlabs.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>