On 22/09/16 08:42 +0200, Kristoffer Grönlund wrote: > Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> writes: > >> I'm not saying it's a bad idea, just that it's more complicated than it >> first sounds, so it's worth thinking through the implications. > > Thinking about it and looking at how complicated it gets, maybe what > you'd really want, to make it clearer for the user, is the ability to > explicitly configure the behavior, either globally or per-resource. So > instead of having to tweak a set of variables that interact in complex > ways, you'd configure something like rule expressions, > > <on_fail> > <restart repeat="3" /> > <migrate timeout="60s" /> > <fence/> > </on_fail> > > So, try to restart the service 3 times, if that fails migrate the > service, if it still fails, fence the node. > > (obviously the details and XML syntax are just an example) > > This would then replace on-fail, migration-threshold, etc.
I must admit that in previous emails in this thread, I wasn't able to follow during the first pass, which is not the case with this procedural (sequence-ordered) approach. Though someone can argue it doesn't take type of operation into account, which might again open the door for non-obvious interactions. -- Jan (Poki)
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org