[ha-wg-technical] RA spec: explicit "probe" operation?

[Andrew Beekhof]

On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Lars Marowsky-Bree <lmb at suse.de> wrote:
> On 2011-06-30T19:07:42, Andrew Beekhof <andrew at beekhof.net> wrote:
>
>> It would alleviate the part where RA writers need to know (and we need
>> to document) when to call validate-all.
>
> Uhm, RA writers don't need to know when to call validate-all.

I was referring to this (which apparently I only half read):

> a) automatically directly prior to an intended "start" - in which case
> it is redundant, since the "start" can report exactly the same.

Start can do this, but only if we educate RA writers to do so.
I'd favor doing it explicitly and automagically.

>
>> Failures would also show up in the CIB (and therefor the tools) under
>> the validate-all op, not start - this might be slightly more helpful
>> for users' debugging.
>
> At the expense of doubling the number of operations we need to call for
> "start", and doubling the effort - since, clearly, "start" needs to
> check all these requirements again.

Every RA already calls validate-all before really trying to start?

> (Just like any op needs to check its own requirements; or at least
> implicitly does, since it otherwise would fail to complete.)
>
>
> Regards,
>    Lars
>
> --
> Architect Storage/HA, OPS Engineering, Novell, Inc.
> SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer, HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
> "Experience is the name everyone gives to their mistakes." -- Oscar Wilde
>
>