On 17/04/17 09:51 -0500, Ken Gaillot wrote: > On 04/13/2017 07:04 AM, Jan Pokorný wrote: >> 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? > > We did consider that. It's not clear how much of the functionality (or > terminology) will be applicable to other technologies (currently known > and potential future ones). We decided that it would be cleaner to > duplicate those fields in other technology tags than to have them not > work for certain technologies.
Then I am confused about this double standard in comparison to
{port,storage}-mapping sections that are already hoisted out.
>>
>>> Also, it will be shown differently in the cluster status, which is
>>> helpful.
--
Jan (Poki)
pgpaCxj5jmjOz.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
