On Thu, 2016-02-25 at 14:45 +0100, Petr Spacek wrote: > Variant C > --------- > An alternative is to be lazy and dumb. Maybe it would be enough for > the first > round ... > > We would retain > [first step - no change from variant A] > * create locations > * assign 'main' (aka 'primary' aka 'home') servers to locations > ++ specify weights for the 'main' servers in given location, i.e. > manually > input (server, weight) tuples > > Then, backups would be auto-generated set of all remaining servers > from all > other locations. > > Additional storage complexity: 0 > > This covers the scenario "always prefer local servers and use remote > only as > fallback" easily. It does not cover any other scenario. > > This might be sufficient for the first run and would allow us to > gather some > feedback from the field. > > Now I'm inclined to this variant :-)
To be honest, this is all I always had in mind, for the first step. To recap: - define a location with the list of servers (perhaps location is a property of server objects so you can have only one location per server, and if you remove the server it is automatically removed from the location w/o additional work or referential integrity necessary), if weight is not defined (default) then they all have the same weight. - Allow to specify backup locations in the location object, priorities are calculated automatically and all backup locations have same weight. - Define a *default* location, which is the backup for any other location but always with lower priority to any other explicitly defined backup locations. - Weights for backup location servers are the same as the weight defined within the backup location itself, so no additional weights are defined for backups. Simo. -- Simo Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York -- Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/freeipa-devel Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code
