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)

Attachment: pgpK6IAgrdUl8.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org

Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org

Reply via email to