[Linux-HA] Groups vs colocations.... etc

[Andrew Beekhof]

On 11/27/06, Andre van der Vlies <andre at vandervlies.xs4all.nl> wrote:
>
> I am setting up a 3 node cluster.
>
> the cluster has two IP-addresses (external and internal
> there are two NFS-filesystems..
> and there is postgres...
>
> All of this stuff has to run on one node.
>
> So I've put everything in a group...
>
> And found that the 'fail-count' is raised only on the last resource for
> that group.
>
> If one resource fails, all (following) resources are restarted (stopped &
> started) in sequence.
>
> Apparently postgres always fails if it is started; think I need to raise
> the timeout...
>
> There's no 'fail-count' for the group; accumulation of all is's resources...
>
>
> What I want is a stickiness for my resources; try 2 or 3 times to get a
> resource running.


> What don't want is a (running) resource to be stopped if another (higher)
> resource in that group fails...
>
> I want the group to fail(over) if one of it's resources runs out of its
> 'stickiness'...

you cant have both

> Now, I've constucted something like that using 'colocations' and 'orders';
> it looks 'ugly'...
>
> Am I missing or misinterpreting sometheing???
> --
>                Andre van der Vlies <andre at vandervlies.xs4all.nl>
>                Certifiable UNIX engineer
>                Homepage: http://vandervlies.xs4all.nl/~andre
> Key fingerprint = 397C 7479 67DB 9306 23DC B423 7B58 CD5A 6EFF 5CF8
> --
>     "Programming isn't a craft, it's an art."
>     ()  ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
>     /\                        - against microsoft attachments
>                               ^[^#]
> --
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
>