From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Teigland Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2008 14:27:26 -0500 Subject: [Cluster-devel] [RFC] Common cluster connection handler API In-Reply-To: References: <20080627163538.GC19105@redhat.com> Message-ID: <20080627192726.GF19105@redhat.com> List-Id: To: cluster-devel.redhat.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit On Fri, Jun 27, 2008 at 08:19:36PM +0200, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote: > >I was actually hoping that with no more ccsd there'd be no more > >"connecting" to ccs, but that's probably a topic for one of the ccs > >meetings... > > The only partial advantage you have, as i documented and wrote to > cluster-devel, is that if you are connected to cman and cman_is_active, > you are guaranteed 99.9% to connected to ccs without problems (only > reason for rejection would be lack of resources on the machine, but at > that point you have more serious issues to worry about). Oops, sorry, I'm still not thinking straight about the new ccs... yeah, that makes sense that if cman is up then ccs should be there, since both are openais extensions. I'm curious, after cman_init() succeeds, what more does cman_is_active() mean? In practice would cman_init() ever be ok, but cman_is_active() not be ok?