--- On Thu, 6/19/08, Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > From: Dejan Muhamedagic <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Aren't both "HA logging daemon" and "Heartbeat logging deamon" > different enough from "system logging daemon" or syslog? As a "logging daemon", I would expect that component to replace syslogd. This is not the case, and that's why it's confusing. > Linux-HA and Heartbeat have been used for the same thing, > i.e. a linux HA software. In my mind, anybody who brings up "Linux-HA" or "HA" to talk about a cluster manager means "Heartbeat". There is no confusion with Xen, or OSCAR, or Rocks. > Of course, I don't mind unifying the name, but > don't see this as urgently needed. > There are quite a few more interesting tasks > regarding the documentation ;-) I'll explain the urgency by saying that the mismatch between the documentation and the code, to which you can add alternative options (i.e. use_logd=yes/no) to achieve the same thing, and recommendations like "use use_logd=yes" with no further explanations, just prevents from understanding the true **design** and *intent** of the developers. Having read the documentation and the source code, I, as developer of resource agents, have no trust in how ha_log() works today and will keep on working tomorrow. Eventually I end up providing one option with ha_log() "to conform to the standard", regardless of the result returned, and one option without ha_log(), that guarantees the result I want to achieve while improving the reliability and the predictability over time >> Does it make sense to call the HeartbeatLogDaemon, a >> "log daemon", when it does NOT itself write messages >> to disk ? > > Why not? A syslogd doesn't have to write messages to > disk either. > Ok, I'll take the "syslog" characteristic, describing the "syslog message protocol", as distinguishing factor >> Isn't the HeartbeatLogDaemon closer to being >> itself a "logger" that sends itself messages >> to the real "log daemon" ? The fact is though, the component has two parts: ha_logger and ha_logd. If the daemon lacks the disk-writing, it's missing then one of the main functions that characterizes as a "logging" daemon. Which suggests the "ha_logd" component is closer to being an extension of the "logger" than of a "logging daemon". > > Then, is the HeartbeatLogDaemon really a "broker" ? Not a broker, it doesn't negotiate. > > Isn't it rather a "proxy", or a Not a proxy, nodes are pushing data to the server, not that the server is pulling data. >> "relay" ? "logger relay" "logger-relay-daemon" sound ok >> Finally, shouldn't it's temporary FIFO buffer >> storage feature be evident in the name ? A relay would appear to know how to store and forward, rather than drop messages like a saturated gateway or bridge. Taking your remark above about syslog in account, we get: "syslog-relay" and "syslog-relay daemon" which sound also fine to me. What shall it be? - The Linux-HA "syslog-relay daemon" with the ha_logger ? - the Heartbeat "syslog-relay daemon" " " " ? - the Linux-HA "logger-relay daemon" with the ha_logger ? - the Heartbeat "logger-relay daemon" " " " ? _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: Linux-HA-Dev@lists.linux-ha.org http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/