Needs some updates.
+ Scores of all kinds are integral to how a cluster works. well, not all clusters, just pacemaker ones. How about: + Scores of all kinds are integral to how Pacemaker clusters work. Assume the intent was to avoid confusion with actual sets here? - <title>Example set of opt-in location constraints</title> + <title>Example of opt-in location constraints</title> Prefer something like: + <title>Example usage of opt-in location constraints</title> or similar to indicate that they only make sense together. I usually try to avoid questions as titles: - <title>What if Two Nodes Have the Same Score</title> + <title>What if Two Nodes Have the Same Score?</title> How about: + <title>When Two Nodes Have the Same Score</title> I like the existing text in this case - <title>Specifying the Order Resources Should Start/Stop In</title> - <para>The way to specify the order in which resources should start is by creating <literal>rsc_order</literal> constraints.</para> + <title>Specifying Resource Start/Stop Order</title> + <para>Use a <literal>rsc_order</literal> constraint to specify resource ordering.</para> Also here: - <entry>The name of a resource that must be started before the then resource is allowed to. </entry> + <entry>The name of a resource that must be started before the then resource. </entry> Although changing to be a literal would be an improvement. Also think colocation makes more sense than resource here: - <entry>The colocation target. The cluster will decide where to put this resource first and then decide where to put the resource in the rsc field</entry> + <entry>The resource target. The cluster will decide where to put this resource first and then decide where to put the colocation resource specified in the rsc field</entry> + <para>Resource sets were introduced for ordering and dependency contraints to simplify this situation.</para> Prefer instead: + <para>To simplify the construction of ordering chains, the resource set syntax may be used instead.</para> + Using resource sets for complex colocation contraints makes things easier. Prefer: + <para>To simplify the construction of colocation chains, the resource set syntax may be used instead.</para> nack, the word "equivalent" is important here - <title>The equivalent colocation chain expressed using resource_sets</title> + <title>A resource set for the same colocation dependency chain</title> and here: - <title>A group resource with the equivalent colocation rules</title> + <title>A group resource for the same colocation dependency chain</title> Small improvement to: + The only thing that matters is that in order for any member of a set to be active, all the members of the previous set must also be active (and naturally on the same node). When a set has <literal>sequential="true"</literal>, then in order for any member to be active, the previous members must also be active. + The only thing that matters is that in order for any member of a set to be active, all the members of the previous set<footnote><para>as determined by the display order in the configuration</para></footnote> must also be active (and naturally on the same node). + When a set has <literal>sequential="true"</literal>, then in order for any member to be active, the previous members must also be active. Strictly speaking, they do have ordering dependancies, just not within the set. + <caption>Visual representation of a colocation chain where the members of the middle set have no order dependencies</caption> Suggest: + <caption>Visual representation of a colocation chain where the members of the middle set have no ordering dependencies with the other sets</caption> On Mon, Mar 21, 2011 at 3:51 AM, Marcus Barrow <mbar...@redhat.com> wrote: > > More simple changes for the "Pacemaker Explained" document. These are for > CH_Constraints.xml and consist of typos and small changes. It also includes a > change to Section 6.6 where dependency on preceding sets and preceding > members of sets are described as M=1 and N+1. These were just changed to use > the word preceding, which might be more clear. > > Regards, > Marcus Barrow > > > _______________________________________________ > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker > > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf > Bugs: > http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker > > _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
