On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 06:14:13PM +0200, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2009-09-16T14:56:40, Dejan Muhamedagic <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Yes, for NFS or OCFS2. But that should be covered by combining > > the hostname with the instance name. To avoid the root directory > > mess, I'd also suggest to create all test files in one > > subdirectory. > > The admin may have a valid reason for specifying the prefix (if they > don't want the subdirectory in the root, for example). > > They get to specify the prefix, from which we construct the final string > by adding the instance/host/clone# number, and using that relative to > the mountpoint. > > Quite simple, really. ;-)
Makes sense. I'd just like to avoid that the parameter is required to run monitor operation. > BTW, while we're at it - bonus points for implementing a > clone-filesystem check which _tries to read from the other node's files_ > and fails if the data is found to be sufficiently outdated when it > shouldn't. But just maybe I'm going over the top here. Do you mean that in that case all clones should fail? Can you provide a use example. > It's amazing how much time can be spent painting bikesheds. I really don't find this discussion superfluous. In particular given our record on user-friendliness. Thanks, Dejan > > > Regards, > Lars > > -- > Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc. > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Markus Rex, HRB 16746 (AG Nürnberg) > "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde > > _______________________________________________________ > Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] > http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev > Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/ _______________________________________________________ Linux-HA-Dev: [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha-dev Home Page: http://linux-ha.org/
