FWIW, bellow my opinion about this On Tue, 16 Jan 2018 16:33:56 -0600 Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> wrote: [...] > I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for > "master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation change.
+1 > A bigger question is what to call the two roles. "Master" and "Slave" > would be continue to be accepted for backward compatibility for a long > time. Some suggestions: > * master/worker, master/replicant, primary/backup: I'd like to avoid > terms like these. OCF and Pacemaker are application-agnostic, whereas > these terms imply particular functionality and are often associated > with particular software. -1 for them as well. > * primary/secondary: Widely used, but sometimes associated with > particular software. +1 > * promoted with either unpromoted, demoted, default, or started: All > OCF and Pacemaker actually care about is whether the resource agent has > been called with the promote action. "Promoted" is good, but the other > role is less obvious. Started and Promoted might do the job, and sounds agnostic in regard with application terminology. I don't have strong argument to pick one between primary/secondary and started/promoted. The first might be more convenient to understand to most people without further explanation about Pacemaker internal mechanism though. [...] I suppose, this should be reflected on pcs/crmsh as well at some point. ++ _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.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