On Wed, 18 Dec 2013 21:21:32 +0100 (CET)
"Rainer Brestan" wrote:
> What i really miss in crmsh is the possibility to specify resource
> parameters which are different on different nodes, so the parameter
> is node dependant. In XML syntax this is existing, Andrew gave me the
> hint as answer to a
18.12.2013 23:21, Rainer Brestan wrote:
> Hi Lars,
> maybe a little off topic.
>
> What i really miss in crmsh is the possibility to specify resource
> parameters which are different on different nodes, so the parameter is
> node dependant.
> In XML syntax this is existing, Andrew gave me the hin
23:20 Uhr
Von: "Lars Marowsky-Bree"
An: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] crmsh: New syntax for location constraints, suggestions / comments
On 2013-12-14T01:11:17, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> > The idea was to offer an add
On 2013-12-14T01:11:17, Vladislav Bogdanov wrote:
> > The idea was to offer an additional construct that provides both
> > properties, since *most of the time*, that's what users want. In the
> > interest of clarity and brevity in the configuration, this would be
> > quite useful.
> group?
group
13.12.2013 15:39, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote:
> On 2013-12-13T13:11:30, Rainer Brestan wrote:
>
>> Please do not merge colocation and order together in a way that only none or
>> both is present.
>
> This was never the plan.
>
> The idea was to offer an additional construct that provides both
> p
On 2013-12-13T13:11:30, Rainer Brestan wrote:
> Please do not merge colocation and order together in a way that only none or
> both is present.
This was never the plan.
The idea was to offer an additional construct that provides both
properties, since *most of the time*, that's what users want.
.
Rainer
Gesendet: Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013 um 11:57 Uhr
Von: "Lars Marowsky-Bree"
An: "The Pacemaker cluster resource manager"
Betreff: Re: [Pacemaker] crmsh: New syntax for location constraints, suggestions / comments
On 2013-12-13T11:46:05, Kristoffer Grönlund wr
13.12.2013, 14:27, "Lars Marowsky-Bree" :
> On 2013-12-13T13:51:27, Andrey Groshev wrote:
>
>> Just thought that I was missing in "location", something like: node=any :)
>
> Can you describe what this is supposed to achieve?
>
> "any" is the default for symmetric clusters anyway.
For example,
On 2013-12-13T11:46:05, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> This worries me as well, however the current syntax for constraints is
> confusing and error-prone.
Right. At least the { } would make it clear to users that it's now a
resource set and not merely more than 2 in the same sequence.
> It would
On Fri, 13 Dec 2013 10:55:32 +0100
Michael Schwartzkopff wrote:
> Order for colocations and order constraints: Please don't do it.
> Everybody got use to the ordering as it is now. It also makes sense.
> Please remember the irritations we had moving from heartbeat 2.0
> (with XML, shudder) to the
On 2013-12-13T13:51:27, Andrey Groshev wrote:
> Just thought that I was missing in "location", something like: node=any :)
Can you describe what this is supposed to achieve?
"any" is the default for symmetric clusters anyway.
Regards,
Lars
--
Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products Gmb
Am Freitag, 13. Dezember 2013, 10:25:48 schrieb Lars Marowsky-Bree:
> On 2013-12-13T10:16:41, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> > Lars (lmb) suggested that we might switch to using the { } - brackets
> > around resource sets everywhere for consistency. My only concern with
> > that would be that it wou
Hi,
Just thought that I was missing in "location", something like: node=any :)
___
Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org
http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: htt
On 2013-12-13T10:16:41, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote:
> Lars (lmb) suggested that we might switch to using the { } - brackets
> around resource sets everywhere for consistency. My only concern with
> that would be that it would be a breaking change to the previous crmsh
> syntax. Maybe that is okay
14 matches
Mail list logo
