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

Ken Gaillot kgaillot at redhat.com
Thu Jan 25 11:11:34 EST 2018

On Wed, 2018-01-24 at 20:58 +0100, Jehan-Guillaume de Rorthais wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Jan 2018 13:28:03 -0600
> Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com> wrote:
> > I think there's enough sentiment for "promoted"/"started" as the
> > role
> > names, since it most directly reflects how pacemaker uses them.
> > 
> > For the resources themselves, how about "binary clones"?
> I'm not sure to understand what your question is about.
> If it is related to how the RA are designated between the ones able
> to
> promote/demote and the other ones, this does not reflect to me the
> resource can
> be either started or promoted. Moreover, I suppose this kind of
> resources are
> not always binary clones. The states might be purely logical.
> Multistate sounds the best option to me. Simple.
> If you need some more options, I would pick: clustered resource.
> We could argue simple clones might be "clustered resource" as well,
> but they
> are not supposed to be related to each other as a primary/promoted
> resource and
> a secondary/standby resource are.

Zeroing in on this question, which does everyone prefer:

* "Binary clones" (in the sense of "one of two roles", but not very

* "Stateful clones" (potentially confusing with anonymous vs unique
clones, and all resources have state)

* "Multistate clones" (less confusing with anonymous vs unique, and
already in current use in documentation, but still all resources have
multiple possible states)

* "Promotable clones" (consistent with "promote" theme, but the word
looks odd, and confusing with whether an individual instance is
eligible to be promoted)

* "Promotion clones" (also consistent, but sounds odd and not
particularly obvious)
Ken Gaillot <kgaillot at redhat.com>

More information about the Users mailing list