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

Steven Dake sdake at mvista.com
Wed Jul 9 11:30:44 PDT 2003


Shureih, Tariq wrote:

>I would have to somewhat agree with Patrick with the exclusion of the
>"New kid on the block statement"; he has a point in that there seems to
>be a lot of gap analysis on the part of PoC, specs and tech board
>members but not a lot of input nor discussion with the
>maintainers/owners of these projects.
>
>Ok, maybe there is _SOME_ two way discussion with project maintainers
>(IBM engineers is the example), however I have to say that more can and
>should be done to involve the projects referred to in PoC and Specs and
>pull them into the "Matrix" of CGL.
>
>  
>
Tariq,

This is a great idea and something the PoC is working towards. 
Unfortunately we have only finished the first phase of our plans which 
is to produce a PoC references list. Next comes integrating PoC member 
companies into those projects.

Thanks
-steve

>--
>Tariq Shureih
> 
>
>*Opinions are my own and don't reflect those of my employer*
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Patrick Mochel [mailto:mochel at osdl.org]
>>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:23 AM
>>To: Fleischer, Julie N
>>Cc: Zhu, Yi; cgl_discussion at osdl.org
>>Subject: RE: [cgl_discussion] linux-ha as a PoC for CCM.1 Cluster
>>Communication Service
>>
>>
>>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
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>cgl_discussion mailing list
>>cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
>>http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
>>    
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>cgl_discussion mailing list
>cgl_discussion at lists.osdl.org
>http://lists.osdl.org/mailman/listinfo/cgl_discussion
>
>
>
>  
>




More information about the cgl_discussion mailing list