hi Seb Sebastien Roy wrote: > > At the very least, the service instances hold properties for those > objects. The semantics behind instance states certainly needs to be > defined. If NWAM is not managing data-links, as an administrator, I > might be satisfied with the services representing what is configured, and > using the tools I've always used to observe the underlying objects' state > (i.e., dladm show-link). > > i definitely agree that data-link properties should be stored in SMF, and that the storage location should be invariant whether NWAM is running or not, but i guess what i'm not getting is the advantages to having a SMF instance representation in the non-NWAM case.
i recall when Dan was looking at the SMF representation for the UV work initially, i suggested using property groups under the network/datalink-management instance to store link information. i prefer this solution for a number of reasons, primarily because it exposes no additional SMF instance interface. i fear that having SMF representations of links visible in the "svcs" output represents another administrative interface in the "NWAM disabled" case, and given that we're ultimately aiming for "NWAM on by default" (where admins will hopefully rarely need to interact with services), i think this is preferable. in the current design, if NWAM has not been run, there are no instances present under network/auto, and if it has run, but has been administratively disabled, the created instances will be offline, and "svcs -x" will report that they are offline because nwam is offline (similarly to how inetd services work). >> the intent of the use of the "auto" namespace in the current design was to >> underline the fact that the instances relate to "NWAM mode" only, so if >> that's >> not the case, i agree that the "auto" prefix is misleading. >> > > My personal opinion is that the object "data-link" or "IP interface" > exists and is manageable regardless of whether a human or a computer is > doing the managing. Having different FMRIs to represent who's managing > them seems strange, as their properties are the same regardless. > > right, i guess i should have clarified that my proposal wasn't to have an alternate instance for a link in SMF when NWAM is not running - it was rather to have no link instance FMRI representation at all when NWAM isn't running. the current link properties would be stored in the same location regardless of whether NWAM's running or not (under network/datalink-management). >>> Or is it simply that NWAM will always be enabled in Phase I? >>> >>> >> it won't, which makes me think this needs a lot more work in light of the >> consideration you've mentioned above. thanks again! >> > > That's part of the reason why Max was brought in to help. Bridging the > gap between /etc/dladm/* and SMF is not obvious. > > agreed :-( alan
