On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <deja...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > Ah, right, sorry, wanted to ask about the difference between > move-off and move. The description looks the same as for move. Is > it that in this case it is for clones so crm_resource needs an > extra node parameter? You wrote in the doc: > > +Migrate a resource (-instance for clones/masters) off the specified > node. > > The '-instance' looks somewhat funny. Why not say "Move/migrate a > clone or master/slave instance away from the specified node"? > > I must say that I still find all this quite confusing, i.e. now > we have "move", "unmove", and "move-off", but it's probably just me :)
Not just you. The problem is that we didn't fully understand all the use case permutations at the time. I think, not withstanding legacy computability, "move" should probably be renamed to "move-to" and this new option be called "move-from". That seems more obvious and syntactically consistent with the rest of the system. In the absence of a host name, each uses the current location for the named group/primitive resource and complains for clones. The biggest question in my mind is what to call "unmove"... "move-cleanup" perhaps? _______________________________________________ Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker@oss.clusterlabs.org http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
