stratos-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Martin Eppel (meppel)" <>
Subject RE: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency definition
Date Thu, 20 Nov 2014 04:05:14 GMT
Hi Udara,

Yes, I confirmed, there are real use cases where we have dependencies on the same cartridge
type but different subscriptions, one is an example of active / standby scenario another one
a scenario to patch / upgrade the system.

Quoting the response below:

ns-01 and ns-02 are instances of a network server cluster.  Strictly speaking they belong
to the same cluster so having both be the same cartridge type makes sense.  Making them different
cartridge types seems wrong.  We really only need either ns-01 or ns-02 to be up in order
to declare the cluster as available and I can't see how we do that if we use different cartridge

One of the original use cases was to use grouping to represent a cluster.  One use cases might
involve have multiple subscriptions representing collectively a cluster, so each having the
same cartridge type would be useful.  Each subscription in this case would have one or more
instances.   For example, if we want to represent a cluster with a subscription a.  At some
point later, we might want to add a subscription b to the group which point to a different
version of code (likely a patched version) and remove subscription a after we've deploy and
verified subscription b.   I imagine doing this by revising a group with additional subscriptions
with the same cartridge type.

I believe Matt has a similar requirement where one VM is in active state and the other is
in standby.

From: Martin Eppel (meppel)
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:21 PM
Subject: RE: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency definition

Hi Udara,

No problem,  I was just wondering if it is supported or not.

On the other hand  we might have a real use case, let me follow up on this



From: Udara Liyanage []
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 6:16 PM
To: dev
Subject: Re: [grouping][question] cartrdige type in dependency definition

Hi Martin,

Creating another cartridge type is just changing the type parameter of the existing cartridge
json  if you are using the base image approach and deploying the new json.

If the requirement is only the easiness in testing, I don't think implementing this feasibility
is necessary given that we are in a tight schedule. However if there is a real world use case
I am OK.

Touched, not typed. Erroneous words are a feature, not a typo.
View raw message