On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 04:25:18PM +0200, Guido Trotter wrote: > On Mon, May 16, 2011 at 4:07 PM, Iustin Pop <[email protected]> wrote: > > My reading of Dato's explanation is that the current code is right, and > > that we pick the first vm_capable node. > > > > If not true, then we need to do something like that. > > > > No, currently there is no "first vm_capable node" picking. We do use > the master node, but don't require it to be vm_capable. > I guess the right solution is to still keep the master node in (for > comparison with other master candidates) and *also* add a vm capable > node outside the current group, what do you think?
Sounds good. thanks, iustin
