[ClusterLabs] Antw: [questionnaire] Do you overload pacemaker's meta-attributes to track your own data?
Ulrich.Windl at rz.uni-regensburg.de
Mon Jul 2 02:04:11 EDT 2018
>>> Jan Pokorný <jpokorny at redhat.com> schrieb am 28.06.2018 um 20:23 in
<20180628182329.GB4826 at redhat.com>:
> * * *
> So now the promised questions; just send a reply where you [x] tick
> your selections for the questions below, possibly with some more
> commentary on the topic, and preferrably on‑list (single of your
> choice is enough):
> 1. In your cluster configurations, do you carry meta‑attributes
> other than those recognized by pacemaker?
> [ ] no
> [ ] yes (if so, can you specify whether for said constraints
> rules, as a way to permanently attach some kind of
> administrative piece of information, whether you
> have the whole custom tooling around this, etc.?)
> 2. How do you feel about said meta‑attributes' namespace separation
> proposal (as summarized in documentation edit per above link)?
> [ ] no feelings/not related to my use cases (e.g., haven't used
> custom meta‑attributes possibility before, no inclination to
> use that in the future)
--> X (the above)
> [ ] too cumbersome, better to live with the risk of the future
> clashes now (and with the risk of distant future automatic
> upgrade doing accidentally a wrong thing)
> [ ] acceptable, but only as an interim solution
> [ ] acceptable without complaints
> * * *
> I am also keen to hear if this rather non‑intrusive change alone could
> be a show‑stopper for some.
> Thanks for your feedback!
>  e.g. for primitive resources:
> Jan (Poki)
More information about the Users