On 03/04/17 09:47 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On 04/03/2017 02:12 AM, Ulrich Windl wrote: >>>>> Ken Gaillot <kgail...@redhat.com> schrieb am 01.04.2017 um 00:43 in >>>>> Nachricht >> <981d420d-73b2-3f24-a67c-e9c66dafb...@redhat.com>: >> >> [...] >>> Pacemaker 1.1.17 introduces a new type of resource: the "bundle". A >>> bundle is a single resource specifying the Docker settings, networking >>> requirements, and storage requirements for any number of containers >>> generated from the same Docker image. >> >> I wonder: Is a "bundle" just a kind of special "group template"? It >> looks as if I could do it with a group also, but would have to >> write a bite more to get it configured. Did I miss something? > > With a group, you could reproduce most of this functionality, though it > would be more verbose: you'd need to configure ocf:heartbeat:docker, > ocf:heartbeat:IPaddr2, and ocf:pacemaker:remote resources, plus a > primitive for your service, as well as constraints that restrict the > primitive to the guest node and prevent any other resource from running > on the guest node. > > However, this can do something that a group can't: launch multiple > instances of a single container image, while associating floating IPs > and storage mappings specific to each replica. This puts it somewhere > between a group and a specialized form of clone.
In that case, wouldn't it be more systemic to factor any generic clone/master-like controls (replicas, replicas-per-host, masters) out of <docker> so it can be reused seemlessly when switching to other possible containerization backends in the future? > Also, it will be shown differently in the cluster status, which is > helpful. -- Jan (Poki)
pgpsScYQcSbMr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list: Users@clusterlabs.org http://lists.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