On 12/04/12 18:21, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2012-12-04T12:45:05, "Gao,Yan" <y...@suse.com> wrote: > >>> (Ohhh. Did we just find a use for a negative score here? ;-) Just >>> throwing that out there. It'd fit the model we have so far, is all I'm >>> saying.) >> Perhaps to name another "kind" for order constraint instead of an >> additional optional attribute? > > Sounds good. But - may this be something that we'd perhaps want to > combine with Mandatory/Optional? Perhaps, making it an additional attribute would definitely provide more combinations for users.
> >> If "group" has already been tortured enough, like Andrew said :-) , then >> we don't have to use group in either way. If we really need some kind >> of "container", how about we just use resource_set: >> >> order vm-then-rscs inf: vm (nagios-foo nagios-bar) \ >> restart-origin="true" >> colocation rscs-with-vm inf: (nagios-foo nagios-bar) vm > > Yes, this also looks like a good idea. > > (While we're at it, it'd be awesome if there was a constraint that > combined order + colocation.) Sounds good. Or we can just leave it to CLIs/GUIs to decide how to pack them :-) > >> <rsc_order id="vm-with-rscs" restart-origin="true"> >> <resource_set id="vm-origin"> >> <resource_ref id="vm"/> >> </resource_set> >> <resource_set id="vm-rscs" sequential="false" > >> <resource_ref id="nagios-foo"/> >> <resource_ref id="nagios-bar"/> >> </resource_set> >> </rsc_order> > > Yes, I think this looks good. The patch to the schema I proposed supports this already ;-) Regards, Gao,Yan -- Gao,Yan <y...@suse.com> Software Engineer China Server Team, SUSE. _______________________________________________ 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
