>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 17.01.2018 um 17:04 in >>> Nachricht <1516205099.5103.3.ca...@redhat.com>: > On Wed, 2018-01-17 at 08:32 +0100, Ulrich Windl wrote: >> > > > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 16.01.2018 um >> > > > 23:33 in Nachricht >> >> <1516142036.5604.3.ca...@redhat.com>: >> > As we look to release Pacemaker 2.0 and (separately) update the OCF >> > standard, this is a good time to revisit the terminology and syntax >> > we >> > use for master/slave resources. >> > >> > I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for >> > "master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation >> > change. >> >> If there will be exactly two states, it'll be bi-state resource, and >> when abandoning the name, you should also abandon names like promote >> and demote, because they stick to master/slave. >> So maybe start with describing what a stateful resource is, then talk >> about names. >> BTW: All resoiucres we have are "stateful", because they can be in >> started and stopped states at least ;-) > > Good points. > > A clone is a resource with a configurable number of instances using the > same resource configuration. When a clone is stateful, each active
s/the same/a common/ # if they were the same, there could be no differences > instance is in one of two roles at any given time, and Pacemaker two: just two or at least two? > manages instances' roles via promote and demote actions. NOw try to define what promote and demote do ;-) > > Too bad "roleful" isn't a word ;-) > > As you mentioned, "state" can more broadly refer to started, stopped, > etc., but pacemaker does consider "started in slave role" and "started > in master role" as extensions of this, so I don't think "stateful" is > too far off the mark. Maybe also state the purpose of having different roles here, and define what a role as opposed to a state is. > > Separately, clones (whether stateful or not) may be anonymous or unique > (i.e. whether it makes sense to start more than one instance on the > same node), which confuses things further. "anonymous clone" should be defined also, just as unique: Aren't all configured resources "unique" (i.e. being different from each other)? I'm curious about more than two roles, multiple "masters" and multiple "slaves". Regards, Ulrich > -- > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ 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
