On 11/15/2012 02:42 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: > On 2012-11-15T09:20:44, Andrew Beekhof <[email protected]> wrote: >> But really, does everything in life have to be a "there can be only >> one!" battle? Highlander wasn't a documentary. > > No, of course not. Choice isn't bad. But neither is choice inherently > and always good.
I disagree. I think choice is very important - even in this case. The people on this list can now compare two utilities and decide which points are preferable in each. They can also choose to pick one and not try the other. > Especially from the point of view of administrators, particularly the > consistent management story of a cluster stack is tantamount. In my not > humble at all opinion, this is an area where evolutionary improvements > are much better received than radical changes. How many GUIs does Pacemaker have, exactly (ignoring pcs or not, up to you)? > I realize that crmsh doesn't do everything; like all software, it has > bugs, design deficiencies, features that are missing. Yet, > administrators quite like it. So it must have gotten some things > right. Yes, and pcs doesn't do everything either. It does some things that crmsh doesn't, and vice-versa. They were designed and built by different people with different visions about the end result. > And yes, a possible result could have been "No, we cannot, crmsh cannot > grow to accommodate them." And perhaps we'd have had a meta-tool, a > side-by-side tool, which takes care of the bits that crmsh can't. Or > whatever. But there might have been the chance that we could have > avoided this. pcs is a meta-tool for full cluster lifecycle management. It wraps around other utilities to provide status output, for example (crm_mon), and allows remote starting of the cluster stack on one or all nodes. crmsh does some really handy things, too, like the output-equals-input for 'crm configure show'. I think that the reality is that users who want crmsh will install it. The same is true for pcs users. > I'm being this painful and annoying because I am convinced this will > hurt the project(s)/community, badly. I think that the *worst* that happens is that we end up with a best-of-breed management solution in the future that is nothing like any solution we have today, having learned lessons in the process. > I would go as far as the, possibly slightly stretched, position that it > hurts the entire HA on Linux in the Data Center story in comparison to > other proprietary HA solutions. Imagine, just for a moment, Veritas > having an entirely different management front-end on RHEL than on > SLES. Or changing it completely from version 5 to 6. I think that history shows this to not be the case; many pieces of software utilized by Linux users in these environments have been completely reinvented - CLIs, GUIs, system-level stuff, you name it - and the results have pushed things forward, not backward. (Ex: xm/virsh, xen/kvm, nptl/ngtl, gcc/egcs, SLES/RH/Ubuntu management utilities for $WHATEVER, for a few examples). I hope we get as many opinions as possible from people about crmsh and pcs (based on what they do) so that we can end up with even better software. -- Lon _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
