From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Fabio M. Di Nitto Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 05:53:54 +0200 Subject: [Cluster-devel] cluster4 gfs_controld In-Reply-To: <4E974A55.3020300@redhat.com> References: <20111013142059.GA6704@redhat.com> <1318516891.2719.30.camel@menhir> <20111013153001.GB6704@redhat.com> <4E974A55.3020300@redhat.com> Message-ID: <4E97B252.30107@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 10/13/2011 10:30 PM, Lon Hohberger wrote: > On 10/13/2011 11:30 AM, David Teigland wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 03:41:31PM +0100, Steven Whitehouse wrote: >>>> cluster4 >>>> . jid from dlm-kernel "slots" which will be assigned similarly >>> What is the actual algorithm used to assign these slots? >> >> The same as picking jids: lowest unused id starting with 0. As for >> implementation, I'll add it to the current dlm recovery messages. >> >> (Frankly, I'd really like to just set jid to nodeid-1. Any support for >> that? It would obviously add a slight requirement to picking nodeid's, >> which 99.9% of people already do.) > > While I think this is simple, I don't think this is the best idea. > > This would only work efficiently if the cluster stack only used whole > numbers, instead of say "integer" (like native corosync). Doesn't pacemaker assigns random nodes ID in the 2^31 range? IIRC there was a long debate at some point in the area. I am sure Andrew can shed some light here. Fabio