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 Sorce * Red Hat, Inc * New York

Manage your subscription for the Freeipa-devel mailing list:
Contribute to FreeIPA: http://www.freeipa.org/page/Contribute/Code

Reply via email to