Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> writes: > Bloat is definitely an issue to consider when adding features. I try to > weigh how many users might be interested, how isolated the new code can > be from other code, whether the feature has any performance impact when > not configured, what alternative approaches are available, and how well > it fits with pacemaker's existing design. > > In this case, the main thing that reassured me was that the code is > reasonably well isolated and should have no significant effect when the > feature is not used in the configuration, and it fit very well with the > existing rules capability. > > Klaus' comments about the limitations of handling it in the RA are a > reasonable argument for handling it within pacemaker. > > Certainly, I agree the best approach is to maintain backward > compatibility in RAs, but that's not always under the control of the > cluster administrator.
FWIW, I think this looks like a useful feature. Complexity-wise, it is already possible to construct complex rule expressions -- and I would consider any kind of rule expression to be advanced usage that most users probably don't need to concern themselves with, other than simple #uname comparisons. Cheers, Kristoffer -- // Kristoffer Grönlund // kgronl...@suse.com
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
