On 03/25/09 08:47, Darren Reed wrote: > 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?
you still have the ability to "ilbadm import <yourfile>", if you prefer (and while I just realised that this doesn't handle comments yet, that's trivial to implement) > 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.) you can do that with <yourfile>. > How do I get all that with ilbadm? see above. > Same can be said for ipadm, dladm and all of the other "wonderful" > new *adm commands we're dreaming up. I don't think I'm the person to answer that ;-) >>>> 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. I think that's up for debate - making a mistake with vi is too easy, for my liking. > 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"? actually no :-) (you mean as root? that's the only case where it would affect ilbd). I don't quite see how that pertains to this discussion, please elaborate so I can understand the concern. thx Michael -- Michael Schuster http://blogs.sun.com/recursion Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion'
