On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote: > On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600 > Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the > > role > > names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them. > > > > For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"? > > I'm not sure to understand what your question is about. > > If it is related to how the RA are designated between the ones able > to > promote/demote and the other ones, this does not reflect to me the > resource can > be either started or promoted. Moreover, I suppose this kind of > resources are > not always binary clones. The states might be purely logical. > > Multistate sounds the best option to me. Simple. > > If you need some more options, I would pick: clustered resource. > > We could argue simple clones might be "clustered resource" as well, > but they > are not supposed to be related to each other as a primary/promoted > resource and > a secondary/standby resource are.
Zeroing in on this question, which does everyone prefer: * "Binary clones" (in the sense of "one of two roles", but not very obvious) * "Stateful clones" (potentially confusing with anonymous vs unique clones, and all resources have state) * "Multistate clones" (less confusing with anonymous vs unique, and already in current use in documentation, but still all resources have multiple possible states) * "Promotable clones" (consistent with "promote" theme, but the word looks odd, and confusing with whether an individual instance is eligible to be promoted) * "Promotion clones" (also consistent, but sounds odd and not particularly obvious) -- Ken Gaillot <[email protected]> _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] 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
