Bug 1729912

Summary: [RFE] Addition of an order constraint for virtual IP address in a HANA System Replication Cluster
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 Reporter: Amir Memon <amemon>
Component: resource-agentsAssignee: Frank Danapfel <fdanapfe>
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA QA Contact: cluster-qe <cluster-qe>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: high    
Version: 7.8CC: abeekhof, agk, cfeist, cluster-maint, fdanapfe, fdinitto, kgaillot, rhel-docs, sbradley, shwu, slevine
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Documentation, FutureFeature
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-11-29 10:25:54 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description Amir Memon 2019-07-15 10:02:54 UTC 
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible: Follow the below link
https://access.redhat.com/articles/3004101

Actual results: At step 4.6.2 there is an addition of a colocation constraint only
=====
[root]# pcs constraint colocation add vip_RH2_02 with master SAPHana_RH2_02-master 2000
=====


Expected results as mentioned by the customer: There should also be an additional order constraint to ensure that the virtual IP address is only activated after the HANA database instance is up and running again. 
After a takeover, the virtual IP address should only be activated again after the database is operational again.
Similarly, when performing a takeover and the source system is still up and running, the first action should be to deactivate the virtual IP address before starting the HANA takeover operation.


Additional info: The RFE is opened for the engineering team to check if it would be OK to modify the document with the addtion of the appropriate order constraint for the VIP.
Comment 3 Ken Gaillot 2019-07-15 15:19:26 UTC 
Fabio, does this sound correct?
Comment 15 Frank Danapfel 2019-11-29 10:25:54 UTC 
Closing this bug, since the support case that led to its creation has been closed and there was never any feedback from the original requestor on the support case for the additional information we asked for.