[ClusterLabs] 99-VirtualDomain-libvirt.conf under control - ?

[Andrei Borzenkov]

On Fri, May 5, 2023 at 11:03 AM lejeczek via Users
<users at clusterlabs.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 29/04/2023 21:02, Reid Wahl wrote:
> > On Sat, Apr 29, 2023 at 3:34 AM lejeczek via Users
> > <users at clusterlabs.org> wrote:
> >> Hi guys.
> >>
> >> I presume these are a consequence of having resource of VirtuaDomain type set up(& enabled) - but where, how cab users control presence & content of those?
> > Yep: https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/blob/v4.12.0/heartbeat/VirtualDomain#L674-L680
> >
> > You can't really control the content, since it's set by the resource
> > agent. (You could change it after creation but that defeats the
> > purpose.) However, you can view it at
> > /run/systemd/system/resource-agents-deps.target.d/libvirt.conf.
> >
> > You can see the systemd_drop_in definition here:
> > https://github.com/ClusterLabs/resource-agents/blob/v4.12.0/heartbeat/ocf-shellfuncs.in#L654-L673
> >
> I wonder how much of an impact those bits have on the
> cluster(&more?)
> Take '99-VirtualDomain-libvirt.conf' - that one poses
> questions, with c9s 'libvirtd.service' is not really used or
> should not be, new modular approach is devised there.
> So, with 'resources-agents' having:
> After=libvirtd.service
> and users not being able to manage those bit - is that not
> asking for trouble?
>

it does no harm (missing units are simply ignored) but it certainly
does not do anything useful either. OTOH modular approach is also
optional, so you could still use monolithic libvirtd on cluster nodes.
So it is more a documentation issue.