[Pacemaker] [PATCH]Bug 2567 - crm resource migrate should support an optional "role" parameter

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Wed, Apr 6, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Holger Teutsch <holger.teutsch at web.de> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-04-06 at 15:38 +0200, Dejan Muhamedagic wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 06, 2011 at 01:00:36PM +0200, Andrew Beekhof wrote:
>> > On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Dejan Muhamedagic <dejanmm at fastmail.fm> wrote:
>> > > Ah, right, sorry, wanted to ask about the difference between
>> > > move-off and move. The description looks the same as for move. Is
>> > > it that in this case it is for clones so crm_resource needs an
>> > > extra node parameter? You wrote in the doc:
>> > >
>> > >        +Migrate a resource (-instance for clones/masters) off the specified node.
>> > >
>> > > The '-instance' looks somewhat funny. Why not say "Move/migrate a
>> > > clone or master/slave instance away from the specified node"?
>> > >
>> > > I must say that I still find all this quite confusing, i.e. now
>> > > we have "move", "unmove", and "move-off", but it's probably just me :)
>> >
>> > Not just you.  The problem is that we didn't fully understand all the
>> > use case permutations at the time.
>> >
>> > I think, not withstanding legacy computability, "move" should probably
>> > be renamed to "move-to" and this new option be called "move-from".
>> > That seems more obvious and syntactically consistent with the rest of
>> > the system.
>>
>> Yes, move-to and move-from seem more consistent than other
>> options. The problem is that the old "move" is at times one and
>> then at times another.
>>
>> > In the absence of a host name, each uses the current location for the
>> > named group/primitive resource and complains for clones.
>> >
>> > The biggest question in my mind is what to call "unmove"...
>> > "move-cleanup" perhaps?
>>
>> move-remove? :D
>> Actually, though the word is a bit awkward, unmove sounds fine
>> to me.
>
> I would vote for "move-cleanup". It's consistent to move-XXX and to my
> (german) ears "unmove" seems to stand for the previous "move" being
> undone and the stuff comes back.
>
> BTW: Has someone already tried out the code or do you trust me 8-D ?

I trust no-one - which is why we have regression tests :-)

>
> Stay tuned for updated patches...
>
> - holger
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Dejan
>>
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> > http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>> >
>> > Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> > Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> > Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
>> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>>
>> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
>> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
>> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker at oss.clusterlabs.org
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://developerbugs.linux-foundation.org/enter_bug.cgi?product=Pacemaker
>