[Pacemaker] [pacemaker][patch 3/4] Simple changes for "Pacemaker Explained", Chapter 6 CH_Constraints.xml

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Wed, May 4, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, May 04, 2011 at 12:49:03PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> Tick tock.  I'm going to push this soon unless someone raises an objection RSN.
>>
>> On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:55 PM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 3:00 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at novell.com> wrote:
>> >> On 2011-04-13T08:37:12, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> >> Before:
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>       <rsc_colocation id="coloc-set" score="INFINITY">
>> >>> >>         <resource_set id="coloc-set-0">
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy2"/>
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy3"/>
>> >>> >>         </resource_set>
>> >>> >>         <resource_set id="coloc-set-1" sequential="false" role="Master">
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy0"/>
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy1"/>
>> >>> >>         </resource_set>
>> >>> >>       </rsc_colocation>
>> >>> >>       <rsc_order id="order-set" score="INFINITY">
>> >>> >>         <resource_set id="order-set-0" role="Master">
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy0"/>
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy1"/>
>> >>> >>         </resource_set>
>> >>> >>         <resource_set id="order-set-1" sequential="false">
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy2"/>
>> >>> >>           <resource_ref id="dummy3"/>
>> >>> >>         </resource_set>
>> >>> >>       </rsc_order>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >>
>> >>> >> After:
>> >>
>> >> So I am understanding this properly - we're getting rid of the
>> >> "sequential" attribute, yes?
>> >
>> > Absolutely.
>
> So, the internal-collocation replaces the sequential attribute?

Yes.

> What are the possible and/or meaningfull values for
> internal-collocation? It looks like that would be 0 or INFINITY
> only, which would translate to old sequential false and true,
> right?

No.

		<choice>
		  <data type="integer"/>
		  <value>INFINITY</value>
		  <value>+INFINITY</value>
		  <value>-INFINITY</value>
		</choice>

> Looking at the schema, the ordering constraint lost score

Score was being mapped to "kind" inside the PE anyway.

> and is
> using only the kind attribute which can have one of:
>
>      <value>None</value>
>      <value>Optional</value>
>      <value>Mandatory</value>
>      <value>Serialize</value>
>
> But then, the "kind" attribute is optional. If missing, how's
> that different from value None?

If its missing you get the default.  Which IIRC is Mandatory not None.

> What does Serialize mean? (in orders)

Same as it did before, this is not new.

> What does score-attribute-mangle mean? (in collocations)

As above.  Not new.

> It's good that finally the role/action got next to the resource.

Agreed.

> I think that it'd be good to clarify the shell syntax before
> applying these changes.

Yes, but I'm not going to wait forever.