Hello, On Tue, Jan 03, 2012 at 05:19:14PM +1100, Andrew Beekhof wrote: > Does anyone have an opinion on the following schema and example? > I'm not a huge fan of the index field, but nor am I of making it > sensitive to order (like groups).
What is wrong with order in XML elements? It seems like a very clear way to express order to me. > Please keep in mind that the new topology section is optional and > would only be defined if: > - you wanted to specify the order in which multiple devices were tried, or > - if multiple devices need to be triggered for the node to be > considered fenced. Triggered serially I guess? Is there a possibility to express fencing nodes simultaneously? > Most people will /NOT/ need to add this section to their configuration. > > -- Andrew > > <fencing-topology> > <!-- pcmk-0 requires the devices named disk + network to complete --> > <fencing-rule id="f-p0" node="pcmk-0"> > <device id-ref="disk"/> > <device id-ref="network"/> > </fencing-rule> > > <!-- pcmk-1 needs either the poison-pill or power device to complete > successfully --> > <fencing-rule id="f-p1.1" node="pcmk-1" index="1" device="poison-pill"/> > <fencing-rule id="f-p1.2" node="pcmk-1" index="2" device="power"> > > <!-- pcmk-1 needs either the disk and network devices to complete > successfully OR the device named power --> > <fencing-rule id="f-p2.1" node="pcmk-2" index="1"> > <device id-ref="disk"/> > <device id-ref="network"/> > </fencing-rule> > <fencing-rule id="f-p2.2" node="pcmk-2" index="2" device="power"/> > > </fencing-topology> > > Conforming to: > > <define name="element-stonith"> > <element name="fencing-topology"> > <zeroOrMore> > <ref name="element-fencing"/> > </zeroOrMore> > </element> > </define> > > <define name="element-fencing"> > <element name="fencing-rule"> > <attribute name="id"><data type="ID"/></attribute> > <attribute name="node"><text/></attribute> > <attribute name="index"><text/></attribute> > <choice> > <attribute name="device"><text/></attribute> > <zeroOrMore> > <element name="device"> > <attribute name="id-ref"><data type="IDREF"/></attribute> > </element> > </zeroOrMore> > </choice> > </element> > </define> I'd rather use "stonith-resource" than "device", because what is referenced is a stonith resource (one device may be used in more than one stonith resource). Or "stonith-rsc" if you're in the shortcuts mood. Or perhaps even "agent". "fencing-rule" for whatever reason doesn't sound just right, but I have no alternative suggestion. IMO, as I already said earlier, index is superfluous. It could also be helpful to consider multiple nodes in a single element. Otherwise, looks fine to me. Thanks, Dejan > </grammar> > > _______________________________________________ > 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org _______________________________________________ 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://bugs.clusterlabs.org
