On 04/12/19 21:19 +0100, Jan Pokorný wrote: > OTOH, this enforced split of state transitions is perhaps what makes > the transaction (comprising perhaps countless other interdependent > resources) serializable and thus feasible at all (think: you cannot > nest any further handling -- so as to satisfy given constraints -- in > between stop and start when that's an atom, otherwise), and that's > exactly how, say, systemd approaches that, likely for that very reason: > https://github.com/systemd/systemd/commit/6539dd7c42946d9ba5dc43028b8b5785eb2db3c5
Yet, systemd started to allow for certain stop-start ("restart")
optimizations at "stop" phase, I've just learnt:
https://github.com/systemd/systemd/pull/13696#discussion_r330186864
But it doesn't merge/atomicize the two discrete steps, still.
OCF could possibly be amended to allow for a similar semantic
indication of "stop to be reversed shortly on this very node if
things go well" if there was a tangible use case, say using
"stop-with-start-pending" action instead of "stop"
(and the amendment possibly building on an idea of addon profiles
https://github.com/ClusterLabs/OCF-spec/issues/17 if there was
an actual infrastructure for that and not just a daydreaming).
--
Jan (Poki)
pgp4GfhUvs0xd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Manage your subscription: https://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users ClusterLabs home: https://www.clusterlabs.org/
