On Wed, Jun 06, 2012 at 07:22:47PM +0200, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Lars Ellenberg
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:15:04PM +0200, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> >> > On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof
On Wed, Jun 6, 2012 at 4:45 PM, Lars Ellenberg
wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:15:04PM +0200, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> > On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> >
>> >> Every argument made so far applies equally to HAWK and
On Tue, Jun 05, 2012 at 05:15:04PM +0200, Rasto Levrinc wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> > On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> >
> >> Every argument made so far applies equally to HAWK and the Linbit GUI,
> >> yet there was no outcry when they were
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 9:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
>> > (When we're talking about Pacemaker (versus the crm), it is obvious that
>> > that wasn't really a technology-driven move.)
>> With the implication being that technology
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:27 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
>> Every argument made so far applies equally to HAWK and the Linbit GUI,
>> yet there was no outcry when they were announced.
>
> No, like I said above, that did suck - but the architectur
On 2012-06-05T09:43:09, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Hi Andrew,
> > (When we're talking about Pacemaker (versus the crm), it is obvious that
> > that wasn't really a technology-driven move.)
> With the implication being that technology-driven moves are bad?
> How do you explain HAWK then? Shouldn't Tim
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 1:43 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
>> On 2012-06-04T11:21:57, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>>
>> Hi Andrew,
>>
>> I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response
>> to Florian. Can we tune that down?
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 3:21 AM, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Chris Feist wrote:
>>> I'd like to announce the existence of the "Pacemaker/Corosync configuration
>>> system", PCS.
>>
>> Be warned, I will surely catc
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response
> to Florian. Can we tune that down? I much prefer to do the shouting at
> each other in person, because then the gestures come across much more
> vividly and the foo
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2012-06-04T11:21:57, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>
> Hi Andrew,
>
> I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response
> to Florian. Can we tune that down? I much prefer to do the shouting at
> each other in person, bec
On Tue, Jun 5, 2012 at 3:38 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:21:57AM +1000, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> [...]
>
> Since Lars MB already replied to most of in between...
>
>> > Assuming that this effort means you'
On 06/01/12 09:56, Florian Haas wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Chris Feist wrote:
I'd like to announce the existence of the "Pacemaker/Corosync configuration
system", PCS.
Be warned, I will surely catch flak for what I'm about to say. Nothing
of this should be understood in a personal
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 04, 2012 at 11:21:57AM +1000, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
[...]
Since Lars MB already replied to most of in between...
> > Assuming that this effort means you're planning to kick the existing
> > crm shell out of Fedora, I think t
On 2012-06-04T11:21:57, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
Hi Andrew,
I am getting a slightly defensive-to-aggressive vibe from your response
to Florian. Can we tune that down? I much prefer to do the shouting at
each other in person, because then the gestures come across much more
vividly and the food is be
On 2012-05-31T18:40:19, Chris Feist wrote:
Hi Chris,
this is certainly a very interesting undertaking.
Like Florian, I am a bit worried about how exactly this differs from the
crm shell we already have - that is not to say I'm opposed to it, but
I'd like to understand this better, given that we
On Sat, Jun 2, 2012 at 12:56 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Chris Feist wrote:
>> I'd like to announce the existence of the "Pacemaker/Corosync configuration
>> system", PCS.
>
> Be warned, I will surely catch flak for what I'm about to say. Nothing
> of this should be
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:40 AM, Chris Feist wrote:
> I'd like to announce the existence of the "Pacemaker/Corosync configuration
> system", PCS.
Be warned, I will surely catch flak for what I'm about to say. Nothing
of this should be understood in a personal way; my critique is about
the work not
I'd like to announce the existence of the "Pacemaker/Corosync configuration
system", PCS.
The emphasis in PCS differs somewhat from the existing shell:
- Configure the complete cluster (corosync plus pacemaker) from scratch
- Emphasis is on modification not display
- Avoid XML round-tripping
- S
18 matches
Mail list logo
