Digimer <[email protected]> wrote:
On 2018-01-16 05:33 PM, Ken Gaillot wrote:
As we look to release Pacemaker 2.0 and (separately) update the OCF
standard, this is a good time to revisit the terminology and syntax we
use for master/slave resources.
I think the term "stateful resource" is a better substitute for
"master/slave resource". That would mainly be a documentation change.
A bigger question is what to call the two roles. "Master" and "Slave"
would be continue to be accepted for backward compatibility for a long
time. Some suggestions:
* master/worker, master/replicant, primary/backup: I'd like to avoid
terms like these. OCF and Pacemaker are application-agnostic, whereas
these terms imply particular functionality and are often associated
with particular software.
* primary/secondary: Widely used, but sometimes associated with
particular software.
This has been used by DRBD for some time and it works well. People are
used to it, and it adds consistency with other open source HA projects /
Clusterlabs people.
This is my top choice.
Mine too based on a first reaction.
* promoted with either unpromoted, demoted, default, or started: All
OCF and Pacemaker actually care about is whether the resource agent has
been called with the promote action. "Promoted" is good, but the other
role is less obvious.
* anything else anyone can think of
For the sake of options; Active / Standby?
"Standby" tends to imply that it's doing nothing, which isn't really
the case. But yeah, good to consider as many options as possible
before making a decision :-)
For Pacemaker 2, I'd like to replace the <master> resource type with
<clone stateful="true">. (The old syntax would be transparently
upgraded to the new one.) The role names themselves are not likely to
be changed in that time frame, as they are used in more external pieces
such as notification variables. But it would be the first step.
I hope that this will be an uncontroversial change in the ClusterLabs
community, but because such changes have been heated elsewhere, here is
why this change is desirable:
* It is *not about anyone being offended*. It is about making everyone
feel *welcome* by avoiding emotionally charged language.
The terms are antiquated and loaded. I _strongly_ support changing them.
* It is *not about victimhood, guilt, blame, or punishment* of any
particular group. It is about striving for excellence, both in accuracy
of terminology and in community development.
Recognizing that, though certain words may not have weight for us, but
do for others, is a sign of maturity in the community.
Amen.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list: [email protected]
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
