[...]
I think there is a middle ground here: it's true that MAAS should
consider it is in control of the nodes; controlling (and monitoring) the
power state is certainly part of it. But as Gavin pointed out, once a
node is deployed, it's out of the question to consider it an *error* (as
in, something so bad MAAS will transition a node to an error state) if
the actual power state is different from the expected power state.
No, I disagree. It's an error because MAAS is in control and expects it to
be in a particular state.
That's true for all the MAAS-controlled steps: namely commissioning,
deploying and releasing. Not so much for 'deployed': a node at this
stage is potentially powering up a user-managed service. If something
looks wrong with this node (for instance if the power state seems wrong)
we want to issue a warning but we don't want to take the initiative to
mark this node as failed.
You cannot have a half way house, either MAAS is managing it or it is not.
MAAS owns the network.
We want MAAS to be the tool through which you control the power state of
the nodes; that's why we should *flag* deployed nodes that seem to be in
the wrong power state. That being said, I don't think we can rule out
the possibility that a deployed server's power state will be controlled
externally; this is mostly a matter of blending in with existing tooling
and practices.
--
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maas-devel
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maas-devel
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
