On Thu, 2018-01-25 at 13:06 -0500, Digimer wrote: > On 2018-01-25 11:11 AM, Ken Gaillot wrote: > > 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 <kgail...@redhat.com> 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) > > I don't want to push my preferences here, but I wanted to suggest > that > something that sounds a bit on now will sound normal over time. > > I will point out, though, that spell check doesn't complain about > 'Binary' and 'Promotion'. > > If I can throw another suggestion in (without offering preference for > it > myself), 'dual-state clones'? The reasoning is that, though three > words > instead of two, spell-check likes it, it sounds OK on day one (from a > language perspective) and it reflects that the clone has only one of > two > states.
Or "dual-role". Binary/dual/multi all have the issue that all resources have multiple states (stopped, started, etc.). Not a deal-breaker, but a factor to consider. What we're trying to represent is: clone resources that have an additional possible role that pacemaker manages via the promote/demote actions. I go back and forth between options. "Multistate" would be OK, especially since it's already used in some places. "Promotable" is probably most accurate. -- 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