On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 12:02:01PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > On Thu, May 5, 2011 at 11:37 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> > wrote: > > On Thu, May 05, 2011 at 09:07:05AM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> > >> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > >> >> Tick tock. I'm going to push this soon unless someone raises an > >> >> objection RSN. > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@novell.com> > >> >> > wrote: > >> >> >> On 2011-04-13T08:37:12, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> >> Before: > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> <rsc_colocation id="coloc-set" score="INFINITY"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_set id="coloc-set-0"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy2"/> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy3"/> > >> >> >>> >> </resource_set> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_set id="coloc-set-1" sequential="false" > >> >> >>> >> role="Master"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy0"/> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy1"/> > >> >> >>> >> </resource_set> > >> >> >>> >> </rsc_colocation> > >> >> >>> >> <rsc_order id="order-set" score="INFINITY"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_set id="order-set-0" role="Master"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy0"/> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy1"/> > >> >> >>> >> </resource_set> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_set id="order-set-1" sequential="false"> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy2"/> > >> >> >>> >> <resource_ref id="dummy3"/> > >> >> >>> >> </resource_set> > >> >> >>> >> </rsc_order> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> > >> >> >>> >> After: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So I am understanding this properly - we're getting rid of the > >> >> >> "sequential" attribute, yes? > >> >> > > >> >> > Absolutely. > >> > > >> > So, the internal-collocation replaces the sequential attribute? > >> > >> Yes. > >> > >> > What are the possible and/or meaningfull values for > >> > internal-collocation? It looks like that would be 0 or INFINITY > >> > only, which would translate to old sequential false and true, > >> > right? > >> > >> No. > >> > >> <choice> > >> <data type="integer"/> > >> <value>INFINITY</value> > >> <value>+INFINITY</value> > >> <value>-INFINITY</value> > >> </choice> > > > > I saw that, but wonder what makes sense in this context. What's > > the difference between values 0, INF, 50, -50, 100? Are all those > > necessary? > > Just as necessary as for colocation constraints not involving sets. > You're setting up the colocation score between elements of the set.
OK. > >> > Looking at the schema, the ordering constraint lost score > >> > >> Score was being mapped to "kind" inside the PE anyway. > >> > >> > and is > >> > using only the kind attribute which can have one of: > >> > > >> > <value>None</value> > >> > <value>Optional</value> > >> > <value>Mandatory</value> > >> > <value>Serialize</value> > >> > > >> > But then, the "kind" attribute is optional. If missing, how's > >> > that different from value None? > >> > >> If its missing you get the default. Which IIRC is Mandatory not None. > >> > >> > What does Serialize mean? (in orders) > >> > >> Same as it did before, this is not new. > >> > >> > What does score-attribute-mangle mean? (in collocations) > >> > >> As above. Not new. > > > > Where are these two documented? Couldn't find anything in the > > docs. > > Looks to be just an alias for XML_RULE_ATTR_SCORE_ATTRIBUTE dating back to > 2005. > So there is probably a reason I didn't document it. So, it's obsolete then? The crm shell actually never supported it :-| And I can't recall that I've ever seen it in a configuration. > Serialize is newer. Its like optional but for a set - no member will > start or stop at the same time as another. OK. > >> > I think that it'd be good to clarify the shell syntax before > >> > applying these changes. > >> > >> Yes, but I'm not going to wait forever. I'm going to try to do something today and tomorrow, but next week I'll be away. So, if you're in a hurry, go ahead with the changes. Just two more notes regarding the language: There's "colocation_set/internal-colocation" and "ordering_set/internal-ordering". They sound different. Should the order stuff be "order_set/internal-order"? I'm not partial to any and furthermore not a native speaker, so I'll leave that to you and others who are more intimate with english. Are we going to name the new stuff differently in shell? Such as collocation_set and order(ing)_set? Though I don't like these in particular, because they are going to be the only ones with '_' in its names, but there seems to be no way around it. Any better suggestions? Thanks, Dejan _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker