Chiming in on the suggestions for terms— using numeric terms (primary, secondary, etc) Is inconsistent since there may be multiple failover nodes that take over for the primary, and it is generally non-deterministic.
IMO having separate terms for nodes that take over a datastore and for nodes that receive replicated data would be a good thing because they are different things. This would allow the full truth table to be indicated at any given time. For example: master (1 node) / slave (n nodes) becomes: active (1 node) / standby (n nodes) primary (1 node) -> replica (n nodes) With this terminology, at a given time a node could be one of: ‘active’+‘primary’ ‘active’+‘replica’ ’standby’+’primary’ ’standby’+’replica’ -Matt Pavlovich > On Jul 14, 2020, at 10:12 AM, Clebert Suconic <clebert.suco...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I would Prefer avoiding passive and active. > > > TBH master and slave wouldn’t offend me as a robot could be considered a > slave without being offensive. > > But if there is general consensus on the term I will leave my personal > opinion to the side there. > > On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 10:42 AM Justin Bertram <jbert...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Dom, internally in Artemis the process of starting the broker is generally >> called "activation". Therefore I typically use the terms "active" and >> "passive" to describe the "running role" as you call it. It's not perfect, >> but it covers most cases. >> >> >> Justin >> >> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 6:58 AM Domenico Francesco Bruscino < >> bruscin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> I would propose to replace `master/slave` with `leader/follower` or other >>> terms different from `live/backup` in ActiveMQ Artemis to keep the HA >>> configuration role of the broker separated from the HA running role of >> the >>> broker. >>> For example, a broker instance with the `slave` HA configuration role >> could >>> acquire the `live` HA running role after a failover. >>> >>> Il giorno mar 14 lug 2020 alle ore 13:42 Jiri Daněk <jda...@redhat.com> >> ha >>> scritto: >>> >>>> On Tue, Jul 14, 2020 at 1:02 PM Xeno Amess <xenoam...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Like I said, I think "worker" can fully replace "slave" in every >> usage >>> in >>>>> activeMQ. >>>>> >>>> >>>> Nope, "worker" does not capture the idea. In Artemis, slave is >>> replicating >>>> the data on the master and replaces the master in case the master dies. >>> The >>>> "worker" terminology is more suitable for a situation when the master >>>> coordinates and all work is done on slaves. >>>> >>>> Looking at >>>> >> https://www.kernel.org/doc/html/latest/process/coding-style.html#naming, >>>> I'd suggest one of >>>> >>>> ‘{primary,main} / {secondary,replica,subordinate}’ ‘leader / follower’ >>>> >>>> I like the leader/follower, personally. I have a feeling I heard it >>>> somewhere in the context of database replication. >>>> >>>> Live / backup sounds good as well, except that "live" brings a bit of >> the >>>> echo of the notorious Unix cruelty and violence (killing children, >>> reaping >>>> zombies). >>>> -- >>>> Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards >>>> Jiri Daněk >>>> >>> >> > -- > Clebert Suconic
