Hi David, On Fri, Nov 09, 2012 at 05:06:32PM -0500, David Vossel wrote: >[...] > > Lars,
Not Lars, but I hope I can give some answers here. > Does the order in which the members of the container start > monitoring matter? Do the members need to be serialized or > anything, or can we just start the container parent, then > assume it is okay to start all the container members? When it comes to nagios/monitoring resources, I think that we can "start" all of them in parallel. But having them serialized wouldn't be a problem either. I'm not sure if people will eventually figure out that they want to (ab)use these containers for stuff other than VM and services which run within VM. BTW, note that start/stop for the new nagios class are going to be just "enable/disable monitoring", or "yes, we can schedule the monitor" and "cancel the scheduled monitor." Hence, it should be handled completely in lrmd. > Having > the internal constraints only interact between the parent and > children resources makes this less complex. Yes, I guess that only the VM resource needs to be exposed in constraints with other resources. > Also, how many of these nagios resources do you think will live per a > container? Anywhere between 1 and n :) No saying what people may want to monitor. My guess is that the average would be 2 or 3. Cheers, Dejan > -- Vossel > > _______________________________________________ > 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
