02.07.2013 14:55, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > > On 02/07/2013, at 8:14 PM, Vladislav Bogdanov <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 02.07.2013 12:27, Lars Marowsky-Bree wrote: >>> On 2013-07-02T11:05:01, Vladislav Bogdanov <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> One thing I see immediately, is that node utilization attributes are >>>> deleted after I do 'load update' with empty node utilization sections. >>>> That is probably not specific to this patch. >>> >>> Yes, that isn't specific to that. >>> >>>> I have that attributes dynamic, set from a RA (as node configuration may >>>> vary, I prefer to detect how much CPU and RAM I have and set utilization >>>> accordingly rather then put every hardware change into CIB). >>> >>>> Or may be it is possible to use transient utilization attributes? >>>> I don't think so... Ugh, that would be nice. >>> >>> Yes, that's exactly what you need here. >> >> I know, but I do not expect that to be implemented soon. Together with >> cluster-wide attributes for which I use hack with tickets now. But >> tickets currently are quite limited - they have only 4 states, so it is >> impossible to put f.e. number there. >> >> I fully understand Andrew's point when he is unwilling to implement >> features for just two setups, so... > > What feature am I not considering here? I don't follow.
I didn't ask about that yet. Just assuming what your possible reaction could be. :) Support for transient utilization attributes, which do not go to config section, but to state section. I would say that is overkill to implement that (and somehow merge two sections when doing utilization calculation) if nobody except me is affected by absence of that. F.e. I need to do CIB update (think of it as of full replace), because I generate crmsh configuration with custom template-based system. And I have some RAs which set utilization attributes on nodes. Now, when I apply my full brand new config to a cluster after making some changes here and there, that attributes are lost. Transient utilization attributes would help me (I would use them in my RAs). But, I wouldn't say that is a common setup. That's why I assume you won't be a fan of implementing them. > >> Probably I need to extend crmsh with >> site-specific patch until that is implemented. That would be acceptable >> work-around for me... And chance to learn python nevertheless ;) _______________________________________________ Linux-HA mailing list [email protected] http://lists.linux-ha.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-ha See also: http://linux-ha.org/ReportingProblems
