On 2007-10-13T13:01:41, Daniel X Moore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The best idea for an extension I've come up with is to allow a group to
> specify a controlling RA which intercepts any action destined for one or
> more RAs in the group. That RA could deal with actions as it sees fit
> (perhaps by dispatching them to the other RAs in the group).
>
> The key is that the group RA would need to know which RAs an action applied
> (ie a specific RA or all RAs in the group).
Another thought here is that this is remarkably similar to a
yet-unimplemented feature, namely containers/proxies - resources which
can contain other resources (nestable). This would be useful for your
scenario as well (they were originally conceived for virtualization).
If you're interested in that, we'd be happy to talk to you, but simply
put: everything you're asking for won't work like that right now, and
all ways you can come up with will be rather fragile and kludgy. Groups
were never intended to be what you want them to be, and they hopefully
never will be ;-)
If you want that supported, Novell and SGI might need to talk. I'd love
to talk to SGI again, FailSafe was lots of fun until the bubble burst
;-)
(That's not to say that the functionality you want isn't useful. It is.
But it should be done in a way which fits the design.)
Regards,
Lars
--
Teamlead Kernel, SuSE Labs, Research and Development
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
_______________________________________________
Linux-HA mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha
See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
