[Pacemaker] Enable remote monitoring

Lars Marowsky-Bree lmb at suse.com
Mon Nov 12 15:01:05 EST 2012

On 2012-11-12T14:52:35, David Vossel <dvossel at redhat.com> wrote:

> Yes, introducing the new order constraint attribute would allow all
> this to be possible without the container object, but all the
> dependencies between the vm and the children would have to be
> generated in the constraint section (order and colocation
> constraints).  I'm not sure how I feel about that.  It is easier from
> an implementation standpoint, but puts a larger burden on the user.

It's the task of the (G)UI to make this easier, if required. I think.
Nothing stops them from rendering this any way it pleases; while staying
compatible on the backend.

> Perhaps we introduce the order constraint attribute and the new lrmd
> work so remote monitoring will be technically possible (large
> configuration burden though).  Then we approach the container object
> as a syntactic shortcut similar to the group object later on if we
> want to.

This is how the slippery slope with groups started ;-) Originally they
were meant to be just a short cut for collocation/order constraints.


Architect Storage/HA
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
"Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde

More information about the Pacemaker mailing list