[Linux-HA] Handling colocation constraints with more than 2 entries
andrew at beekhof.net
Fri Oct 8 07:08:48 MDT 2010
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at novell.com> wrote:
> On 2010-10-08T08:27:45, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>> I'd be in favor of the join construct above (although I'd probably
>> call it "depends"),
> Yes, one of the hardest problem in all of computer science is naming
> things ;-)
>> but it doesn't address the original problem that
>> the shell syntax for colocation constraints switches direction when
>> you add a third element.
> Yes, that too should be fixed.
Another idea, instead of colocation+brackets, add colocation_set and
use whatever new semantics you prefer.
> I'm just voicing that the whole notion of "ordered" collocation gives me
> the creeps, and that I'd want to abstract this differently.
The ordered colocation doesn't go away though, you're just piggy
backing of ordering somewhere else.
> Similarly, we could do away with groups now - the shell could have that
> object, yes, but what else is it than a straightforward resource set
> that wraps around the primitives? (Just like the group object, just in a
> different section.) 
>  Bonus points if you can figure out how to handle cloned groups then
Now that we've finally got this sort of thing working nicely and you
want to rewrite it?
Don't make me hurt you :-)
> Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg)
> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
> Linux-HA mailing list
> Linux-HA at lists.linux-ha.org
> See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
More information about the Linux-HA