On 24/03/09 02:54 PM, Michael Schuster wrote: > On 03/24/09 13:57, Peter Tribble wrote: >> 2009/3/23 <Zhenghui.Xie at sun.com>: >>> Attached is a writeup based on our discussion of the SCF part. >>> Comments? >>> Send them out by COB Weds, or silence is gold afterward :-) >>> >>> Thanks. >>> >>> -Jan >>> >>> >>> 1. ilb will have one single instance in SMF framework: >>> svc:/network/loadbalancer/ilb:default >>> 2. persistent configuration of ilb is saved in SCF. >> >> Why SCF? I wouldn't regard SCF as suitable for holding complex >> configuration >> data of the type required for something like ilb. > > how complex are you thinking?
How do you intend to show a dozen services being load balanced, along with comments about how and why? Text configuration files are useful in many ways, for example, you can use RCS or SCCS or whatever and manage them with version control software. Not only that, you get a history of who did what, when and why (well, hopefully.) How do I get all that with ilbadm? Same can be said for ipadm, dladm and all of the other "wonderful" new *adm commands we're dreaming up. >>> 7. user can use svcprop(1) to get ilb configuration. But should NOT use >>> svccfg(1M) to change ilb configuration. >> >> Why not? If you're using SCF, then svccfg should be a supported way of >> modifying the configuration > > why? just because you *can* edit many files with vi doesn't mean > that's a supported way of doing it. No, but it is easy, informative and much less prone to error. A month or so ago, a few of us sat down with a group that does professional system administration and they were quite in favour of having configuration files that can be validated before loading rather than having to do everything on the command line. Why? Ever done "kill -9 - 1" by accident? Or "kill -9 % 1"? Darren
