On 06/17/2011 02:43 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:52:37PM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
>> On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> With the current "
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 03:52:37PM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> >> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> >>> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
> >>
, SL5 8RR Registered in England No. 03203624.
-Original Message-
From: linux-ha-dev-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org
[mailto:linux-ha-dev-boun...@lists.linux-ha.org] On Behalf Of Alan Robertson
Sent: 16 June 2011 10:53 PM
To: High-Availability Linux Development List
Subject: Re: [Linux-ha-dev
On 06/16/2011 02:51 AM, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
> Sorry that I left off the "As
On 2011-06-16 10:51, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
>>> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>>
>> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
>
> Sorry that I left off the
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 09:48:20AM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> > With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
>
> Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
Sorry that I left off the "As you are well aware of,"
introductionary phrase.
On 2011-06-16 09:03, Lars Ellenberg wrote:
> With the current "unique=true/false", you cannot express that.
Thanks. You learn something every day. :)
> Depending on what we chose the meaning to be,
> parameters marked "unique=true" would be required to
> either be all _independently_ unique,
>
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 04:07:27PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-15 15:50, Alan Robertson wrote:
> > On 06/14/2011 06:03 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> >> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> >>> Hi Alan,
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
>
On 2011-06-15 15:50, Alan Robertson wrote:
> On 06/14/2011 06:03 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
> A couple of observati
On 06/14/2011 07:21 AM, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi Florian,
>
> On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:03:19PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
>> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>>> Hi Alan,
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon T
On 06/14/2011 06:03 AM, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> Hi Alan,
>>
>> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
>>> On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness fl
Hi Florian,
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 02:03:19PM +0200, Florian Haas wrote:
> On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> > Hi Alan,
> >
> > On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> >> On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
> >>> A couple of observations (I am sure
On 2011-06-14 13:08, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
> Hi Alan,
>
> On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
>> On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
>>> A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness flag
>>> for OCF script parameters:
>>>
>>> Would i
Hi Alan,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:32:02AM -0600, Alan Robertson wrote:
> On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
> > A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness flag
> > for OCF script parameters:
> >
> > Would it be wise for the for the index parameter of the SFEX
Hi,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2011 at 10:12:13AM +, Simon Talbot wrote:
> A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness flag
> for OCF script parameters:
I knew there are going to be quite a few :)
> Would it be wise for the for the index parameter of the SFEX ocf script to
>
On 06/13/2011 04:12 AM, Simon Talbot wrote:
> A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness flag
> for OCF script parameters:
>
> Would it be wise for the for the index parameter of the SFEX ocf script to
> have its unique flag set to 1 so that the crm tool (and others) wo
A couple of observations (I am sure there are more) on the uniqueness flag for
OCF script parameters:
Would it be wise for the for the index parameter of the SFEX ocf script to have
its unique flag set to 1 so that the crm tool (and others) would warn if one
inadvertantly tried to create two SF
17 matches
Mail list logo
