Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 09:37:39 -0600 Ken Gaillot wrote: ... > > All RA > > must implement the first two states "stopped" and "started". The > > cases where RA > > is promotable should then be called..."promotable" I suppose. > > > > However, why exactly should we find a

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 2018-01-26 03:52 AM, Klaus Wenninger wrote: >> "Promotable" is certainly accurate, but I have a (very mild) concern >> about how easily it is understood by non-native English speakers. >> Perhaps someone who speaks English as a second language could chime in >> on that? > I would probably fall

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 01/26/2018 04:37 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 09:07 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: >> On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0500 >> Digimer wrote: >> >>> On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote:  

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Fri, 2018-01-26 at 09:07 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0500 > Digimer wrote: > > > On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > > On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote:   > > > > On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Fri, 26 Jan 2018 12:41:51 +0300 Vladislav Bogdanov wrote: > 25.01.2018 21:28, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > [...] > > >> If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for > >> it > >> myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three > >>

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

25.01.2018 21:28, Ken Gaillot wrote: [...] If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for it myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three words instead of two, spell-check likes it, it sounds OK on day one (from a language perspective) and it

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 01/25/2018 09:21 PM, Digimer wrote: > On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >> On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: >>> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 15:21:30 -0500 Digimer wrote: > On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: > >> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > >>> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais > >>>

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 2018-01-25 01:28 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: >> On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: >>> On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais >>> wrote: On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 Ken Gaillot

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: > On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais > > wrote: > > > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 > > > Ken Gaillot wrote: > > > > > > > I think there's enough

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: >> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 >> Ken Gaillot wrote: >> >>> I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the >>> role >>> names, since it

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 > Ken Gaillot wrote: > > > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the > > role > > names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them.

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 11:31 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:28:16 +0100 > Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > > > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:03:34 +0100 > > Ivan Devát wrote: > > > > > > I think there's enough sentiment for

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 11:28:16 +0100 Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:03:34 +0100 > Ivan Devát wrote: > > > > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the role > > > names, since it most directly reflects how

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Thu, 25 Jan 2018 10:03:34 +0100 Ivan Devát wrote: > > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the role > > names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. > > > Just a question. > The property "role" of a resource operation can have

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

Hi, I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the role names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. Just a question. The property "role" of a resource operation can have values: "Stopped", "Started" and in the case of multi-state resources, "Slave" and

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 Ken Gaillot wrote: > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the role > names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. > > For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"? I'm not sure to

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 19:59 +0100, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote: > Ken Gaillot writes: > > > > > I can see the point, but I do like having separate. > > > > A clone with a single instance is not identical to a primitive. > > Think > > of building a cluster, starting with one

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

Ken Gaillot writes: > > I can see the point, but I do like having separate. > > A clone with a single instance is not identical to a primitive. Think > of building a cluster, starting with one node, and configuring a clone > -- it has only one instance, but you wouldn't

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 11:19 +0100, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote: > Ken Gaillot writes: > > > > > For Pacemaker 2, I'd like to replace the resource type > > with > > . (The old syntax would be transparently > > upgraded to the new one.) The role names themselves are not likely

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

Ken Gaillot writes: > > For Pacemaker 2, I'd like to replace the resource type with > . (The old syntax would be transparently > upgraded to the new one.) The role names themselves are not likely to > be changed in that time frame, as they are used in more external pieces >

Re: [ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

On 2018-01-16 05:33 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > As we look to release Pacemaker 2.0 and (separately) update the OCF > standard, this is a good time to revisit the terminology and syntax we > use for master/slave resources. > > I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for >

[ClusterLabs] Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

As we look to release Pacemaker 2.0 and (separately) update the OCF standard, this is a good time to revisit the terminology and syntax we use for master/slave resources. I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for "master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation