[cgl_discussion] linux-ha as a PoC for CCM.1 Cluster Communication Service

Patrick Mochel mochel at osdl.org
Tue Jul 8 09:22:56 PDT 2003


On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, Fleischer, Julie N wrote:

> > Hi Julie,
> > 
> > Given most of the features to NO, I don't think linux-ha is 
> > still suitable
> > to be a PoC for the current requirement. Is it possible to 
> > change the CGL
> > cluster communication requirement to be more generic? I mean we don't
> > define approach details in the spec. For example, we just say 
> > CGL shall
> > provide a point-to-point and multipoint communication service 
> > but don't
> > specify it must use a socket-based interface; we can say CGL 
> > shall provide
> > a reliable communication service that detects communication 
> > failures but
> > don't specify the communication mode must be connection or 
> > connectionless.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > -yi
> 
> I'll make a note to bring this up at the POC meeting.  As far as the CGL Spec or POC tracking list, my understanding is that it's okay to leave projects, such as Linux-HA, that don't implement the full requirement as references.  In the POC tracking list, the "gap analysis" column is used to define which projects will/won't implement the full requirement.
> 
> I'll bring up what you suggest:  "Do we have a viable option in the CGL 2.0 timeframe for the requirement as it is worded?  What about if the requirement were more generic?"

Something that has been occuring to me in recent flurry of project 
analysis to fulfill CGL requirements is that the projects and/or people 
involved are not contacted at all to determine whether or not they may or 
may not meet your requirements in the future. 

You're simply speculating on the viability of these projects to meet your
needs, unless they explicitly state that they fulfill the requirements. As
was already seen with the 'Persistant Device Naming' (or whatever it is
called this week) Requirement, the collective speculation overlooked the 
potential of the udev (and related) projects. 

I fear that other speculation may lead to overlooking of other projects, 
which will potentially lead to someone wasting a lot of time reinventing 
something rather than reusing and improving something else.

The current practice is not very community-oriented.  Although the CGL
project has not had a great reception in the past, it is imperative that
you communicate with the other Open Source projects you're evaluating
using. 

You guys are (still) the new kids at school. No one is going to come
running over to be your friends; you have to talk to the other kids and 
make yourselves likeable. :) 


	-pat




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list