[ClusterLabs] Plea for a new DLM release and thoughts on its Pacemaker interface
teigland at redhat.com
Tue Jan 8 10:17:13 EST 2019
On Tue, Jan 08, 2019 at 11:56:18AM +0100, wferi at niif.hu wrote:
> Hi David,
> The DLM git repo accumulated a couple of patches over the 4.0.7 tag,
> would you mind cutting a new release for packaging?
> Tangentially, would you be interested in an Autotoolized build system?
> The flag handling repeatedly gives me headaches, and I'd consider
> contributing that if you aren't opposed.
Thank you, but I'll decline; I really don't care for autotool building.
> And if DLM development continues with the current code base -- you
> mentioned new developments for recovering from network message loss, so
> I expect changes..?
I don't know what the status of that is, but it would mostly be kernel
> And once we're at it: the STONITH helper embedding to SONAME of the
> Pacemaker fencing library is pretty obscure and easy to miss on library
> transitions. I guess it's done to avoid unconditionally pulling in
> Pacemaker libraries and their dependencies. Don't you think this helper
> agent had better be a part of the Pacemaker CLI utilities instead? In
> my opinion the ABI coupling is stronger than the textual interface
> dlm_controld uses. But even if not, it would be possible to dynamically
> link the agent against the Pacemaker libraries and split it into a
> separate optional package to make all those dependencies avoidable on
> systems not using Pacemaker fencing. If all parties agree, of course.
I wasn't aware of the difficulties. I'm open to suggestions as long as
dlm_controld has a fence-agent-style binary to call.
More information about the Users