[ClusterLabs] Antw: Feedback wanted: changing "master/slave" terminology

Adam Spiers aspiers at suse.com
Wed Jan 17 04:49:54 EST 2018

Ulrich Windl <Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de> wrote:
>>>> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> schrieb am 16.01.2018 um 23:33 in Nachricht
><1516142036.5604.3.camel at redhat.com>:
>> 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.
>If there will be exactly two states, it'll be bi-state resource, and
>when abandoning the name, you should also abandon names like promote
>and demote, because they stick to master/slave.

That's not true; the concepts of promotion/demotion apply in entirely
different contexts to master/slave (e.g. careers), and in fact there
is a strong argument that outside a computing context they never
applied to master/slave in the first place.

>So maybe start with describing what a stateful resource is, then talk about names.

Good idea.

>BTW: All resoiucres we have are "stateful", because they can be in started and stopped states at least ;-)

Yes, good point :-)


>> * The long history of the terms master/slave being used in an
>> emotionally neutral context in engineering fields is not a reason to
>> continue using them. The concept of slavery *should not* be emotionally
>> neutral; it should evoke strong feelings.
>To change anything because of the _word_ "slave" is absolute nonsense
>IMHO. Next would be "servant", I guess, and then "server".

That's a gigantic leap from "slave" to "servant", and another big one
to "server".  It would be great if we didn't have to dive into the
history of human oppression in this discussion; the differences should
be obvious to everyone.

More information about the Users mailing list