Like Lars, I too was under the wrong impression about this configfs "nodemanager" kernel component. Our discussions in the cluster meeting Monday and Tuesday were assuming it was a general service that other kernel components could/would utilize and possibly also something that could send uevents to non-kernel components wanting a std. way to see membership information/events.
As to kernel components without corresponding user-level "managers", look no farther than OpenSSI. Our hope was that we could adapt to a user-land membership service and this interface thru configfs would drive all our kernel subsystems. Bruce Walker OpenSSI Cluster project -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Lars Marowsky-Bree Sent: Wednesday, July 20, 2005 9:27 AM To: David Teigland Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [Linux-cluster] Re: [Ocfs2-devel] [RFC] nodemanager, ocfs2, dlm On 2005-07-20T11:35:46, David Teigland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Also, eventually we obviously need to have state for the nodes - > > up/down et cetera. I think the node manager also ought to track this. > We don't have a need for that information yet; I'm hoping we won't > ever need it in the kernel, but we'll see. Hm, I'm thinking a service might have a good reason to want to know the possible list of nodes as opposed to the currently active membership; though the DLM as the service in question right now does not appear to need such. But, see below. > There are at least two ways to handle this: > > 1. Pass cluster events and data into the kernel (this sounds like what > you're talking about above), notify the effected kernel components, > each kernel component takes the cluster data and does whatever it > needs to with it (internal adjustments, recovery, etc). > > 2. Each kernel component "foo-kernel" has an associated user space > component "foo-user". Cluster events (from userland clustering > infrastructure) are passed to foo-user -- not into the kernel. > foo-user determines what the specific consequences are for foo-kernel. > foo-user then manipulates foo-kernel accordingly, through user/kernel > hooks (sysfs, configfs, etc). These control hooks would largely be specific > to foo. > > We're following option 2 with the dlm and gfs and have been for quite > a while, which means we don't need 1. I think ocfs2 is moving that > way, too. Someone could still try 1, of course, but it would be of no > use or interest to me. I'm not aware of any actual projects pushing > forward with something like 1, so the persistent reference to it is somewhat > baffling. Right. I thought that the node manager changes for generalizing it where pushing into sort-of direction 1. Thanks for clearing this up. Sincerely, Lars Marowsky-Brée <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- High Availability & Clustering SUSE Labs, Research and Development SUSE LINUX Products GmbH - A Novell Business -- Charles Darwin "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge" -- Linux-cluster mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-cluster - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
