[ClusterLabs Developers] New LVM resource agent name (currently LVM-activate)

[Kristoffer Grönlund]

Eric Ren <zren at suse.com> writes:

> Hello everyone,
>
>> lvm2:
>> Good - It's obvious it's a newer/better version of the lvm agent.
>> Bad - It may be associated with the lvm2 commands which we are working 
>> on phasing out.
>
> At first, I thought LVM2 seems good because users probably get an idea 
> that it's a new version,
> something to replace the existing LVM, like IPaddr2 to IPaddr, it's not 
> something co-existing/co-working
> with LVM. But, some users may relate the version number ("2") with LVM2 
> project itself.
>
>> Does anyone else have any other ideas for names or preferences? (Or 
>> reasons to keep the current LVM-activate name?).
>
> As David said, LVM-activate can express its whole meaning - just to 
> manage activation of logical volumes.
> Well, I don't know, it's hard to choose :-/
>
> Anyway, it's good idea to announce this new RAs and lvmlockd/systemid 
> features in clusterlab user ML at some point.
>
> I've asked our QA to schedule a testing on the RAs soon, and I also find 
> some potential improvements to do
> in my next pull request. Plus to the naming issue, I would appreciate 
> any testing/pull-request for this RAs :)

I am getting the feeling that the best thing to do would be to combine
the two agents. It sounds like the main thing added by LVM-activate is
the two new modes, which could be added to the existing agent?
Especially now that the activation modes are more or less plugins to the
old agent.

LVM vs. LVM2 is confusing enough on its own, if there's an actual lvm2
project that just makes it even worse... IPaddr and IPaddr2 is a
situation we don't want to repeat. :/

Even if it means some extra work, I suspect it will be worth it in the
end to combine them.

Cheers,
Kristoffer


>
> Thanks,
> Eric

-- 
// Kristoffer Grönlund
// kgronlund at suse.com