I just talked with Doug McCallum about what share manager does and I think that might work nicely for us. It uses instances, property groups and properties. I'll write up the proposal if you wish.
Jean Ethan Quach wrote: > > > Dave Miner wrote: >> Jean McCormack wrote: >>> Dave Miner wrote: >>>> Sundar Yamunachari wrote: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> The update to the the design document for the AI spring release >>>>> based on comments, feedback and design considerations is at >>>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/auto_install/Design_doc_delta_for_AI_Spring_2009.1.pdf. >>>>> >>>>> This can be also accessed from the Caiman documentation page at >>>>> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/project/caiman/auto_install/Documentation. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> 1.1 The service dependency descriptions here have been superceded, >>>> I believe, by the results of discussion around jean's design note >>>> from last week. >>> >>> What we have is: >>> svc:/network/dns/multicast:default optional restart_on restart >>> svc:/network/tftp/udp6:default optional restart_on none >>> svc:/network/http:apache22 required restart_on none >>> >>>> >>>> I have concerns about the service configuration file proposed >>>> here. Was storing these in SMF property groups considered? The >>>> data seems compatible with doing so. One of the points of SMF was >>>> to reduce the need for lots of configuration file formats, each >>>> with their own custom parsers. Are there other factors arguing >>>> against use of the SMF repository? >>> Dave, >>> >>> The issue around using the SMF property groups, I believe, is the >>> scalability factor. To do this we need to have a list of n sets of >>> properties one for each possible install service. In our discussion >>> last week you mentioned that SMF properties didn't scale very well. >>> >> >> I think the concern around scaling is in placing lots of data as >> lists into single properties. >> >>> Or are you talking about starting up a new smf service for each >>> install service? In that case the property groups would work very well. >>> > > This decision still needs to be worked out. We're not certain yet > which way we're going to go with this. > >> >> A new service per group could be a choice, I guess. > >> Alternatively you might create a new property group associated with >> the system/install/server installation service, with its name based >> on the install service name. > > Dynamically creating new, arbitrarily named property groups for an > SMF service? Is this really done by any other SMF services or even > recommended? > > > -ethan > >> >> Dave >> >>> Jean >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Dave >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> caiman-discuss mailing list >>> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >>> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss >> >> _______________________________________________ >> caiman-discuss mailing list >> caiman-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/caiman-discuss
