On Thu, 11 Jan 2018 18:32:35 +0300 Andrei Borzenkov <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 2:52 PM, Ulrich Windl > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > >>>> Andrei Borzenkov <[email protected]> schrieb am 11.01.2018 um 12:41 > >>>> in > > Nachricht > > <caa91j0waoqg46434gvvz_8yw5ve09fqhshqp-vqjo7uv6fe...@mail.gmail.com>: > >> On Thu, Jan 11, 2018 at 10:54 AM, Ulrich Windl > >> <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> Hi! > >>> > >>> On the tool changes, I'd prefer --move and --un-move as pair over --move > >>> and --clear > >> ("clear" is less expressive IMHO). > >> > >> --un-move is really wrong semantically. You do not "unmove" resource - > >> you "clear" constraints that were created. Whether this actually > >> results in any "movement" is unpredictable (easily). > > > > You undo what "move" does: "un-move". With your argument, "move" is just as > > bad: Why not "--forbid-host" and "--allow-host" then? > > That would be less confusing as it sounds more declarative and matches > what actually happens - setting configuration parameter instead of > initiating some action. For what is worth, while using crmsh, I always have to explain to people or customers that: * we should issue an "unmigrate" to remove the constraint as soon as the resource can get back to the original node or get off the current node if needed (depending on the -inf or +inf constraint location issued) * this will not migrate back the resource if it's sticky enough on the current node. See: http://clusterlabs.github.io/PAF/Debian-8-admin-cookbook.html#swapping-master-and-slave-roles-between-nodes This is counter-intuitive, indeed. I prefer the pcs interface using the move/clear actions. _______________________________________________ Users mailing list: [email protected] http://lists.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/users Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
