[ClusterLabs Developers] New LVM resource agent name (currently LVM-activate)
kgaillot at redhat.com
Mon Nov 27 12:23:46 EST 2017
On Thu, 2017-11-23 at 16:54 +0800, Eric Ren wrote:
> > What about VolumeGroup (in the tradition of Filesystem, for
> > instance)?
> In the LVM-activate, we will support both all VG activation and only
> specified LV
> activation depending on the parameters.
> > Or why not shoot for an LVM merge (plus proper versioning to tell
> > the difference)?
> You mean merging LVM-activate with the existing LVM? Here was a long
> discussion about that:
Looking at that discussion, I would agree that merging the two agents
would be ideal, but this case is an exception because the parameters
have changed too much. As a user posted on that thread, different sites
will reasonably want to migrate their LVM clusters on different
schedules, so even if the new agent is always better, having both for a
long transition period makes sense.
My suggestion would be to add a paragraph to each agent's <longdesc>
describing the situation and why a user might prefer one agent over the
other (the same paragraph to both). The description is likely the first
place a user will look if they're confused about why there are two
If the new agent becomes the clear preference, we can eventually add a
"deprecated" notice to the old agent's description. (And if the
proposed OCF overhaul ever comes to fruition, there may be a formal
means of deprecating it as well.)
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>
More information about the Developers