On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:57:03AM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 10:05 AM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 09:23:52AM +0100, Guido Trotter wrote: > >> From: Adeodato Simo <[email protected]> > >> > >> The list of all hypervisor parameters has to be computed in > >> LUClusterVerifyGroup, since it needs to be passed to nodes as > >> NV_HVPARAMS. However, it is better only to verify said parameters once, > >> out of LUClusterVerifyConfig. > > > > "Out of" as "in"? > > > > Guess so. > > > I wonder if it's possible to misuse this if we'll ever only run verify a > > single group, and errors that would've been caught by the syntax checks > > will only be reported via the node. > > > > I'm not sure I follow here. You mean: if we only verify a single group > at a time we could miss errors?
Not necessarily miss, but rather that we get much stranger messages from HV live validation, when the error would be much clearer at syntax level. > Maybe we should have a "verify config but NO groups" option, what do you > think? That doesn't sound bad at all. The verify config option could be very fast and run more often maybe. thanks, iustin
