On 12/07/12 07:38, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On 06/12/2012, at 10:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <l...@suse.com> wrote: > >> On 2012-12-06T22:25:40, Andrew Beekhof <and...@beekhof.net> wrote: >> >>> But any failures of the nagios agents would count against the VM's >>> migration-threshold. >>> So if moving were the right thing to do, it would have done it already. >> >> OK. I think this was due to me still being stuck on the workings of an >> order constraint, but of course if the failures are instead attributed >> to the container, this would happen automatically already. True. >> >> (Incidentally, I like "attribute", "ascribe" better than "delegate" >> because to me, they better fit what's going on, if we sticked with >> "delegate-failures". Just saying. ;-) > > My use of "delegate" comes from my time with ObjectiveC where its common > practice to use them for "I'm not going to handle X but here is something > that does" style functionality. > Which fits nicely with what we're doing here. > > container="vm" also works though. > >> >>>> We already have on-fail settings. How would these play together? >>> Good question. My initial thought was that it would be up to on-fail >>> settings in the VM. >> >> I'd prefer to keep that separate (as proposed below). Because if an >> action of the *VM* really fails, I may want an admin to look into it >> (why could the bloody hypervisor not start/stop it?), which is different >> from restarting the VM if one of the resources within it needs that. >> >>>> Would it even make sense to have on-fail="restart-container"? (Or a >>>> nicer wording.) >>>> >>>> Hmmm. That might work. We allow a "container" to be specified as a meta >>>> attribute. >>>> >>>> If set, on-fail would default to restart container for most actions. But >>>> admins could actually modify it - say, they might want to set >>>> monitor on-fail="ignore" to just get notified. And when we move forward >>>> to whiteboxes, we could have start/monitor/promote/demote >>>> on-fail="restart" (like now) and stop on-fail="restart-container". >>>> >>>> That appears reasonably neat? >>> It does actually. >>> I wasn't originally thinking it was necessary but it makes sense now >>> that you point it out. >> >> Yes, I think I like this too now. >> >> Uhm. Would "container" imply ordering + colocation, or would we still >> need them grouped (resource_set'ed, whatever)? > > Ordering: absolutely Would any user not like the implied order? Instead want an asymmetrical or some curious one? Although it seems just putting a mandatory "container:start -> resource:start" internally should applies for most cases, and it would simplify the configuration of the "white" container.
Regards, Gao,Yan > Colocation is less clear, I think the default is no but David has suggested > an additional meta attribute to turn it on. > > -- Gao,Yan <y...@suse.com> Software Engineer China Server Team, SUSE. _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
