Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

High: VirtualDomain: Rename utilization parameters and reverse default #1051

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

krig
Copy link
Contributor

@krig krig commented Nov 8, 2017

Having the VirtualDomain agent set utilization limits by default
is confusing and (in my opinion) not the correct choice. Someone
setting the agent up for the first time would not look at the
autoset parameters and consider utilization an advanced feature,
and the resource wouldn't be able to start unless they had also
set matching utilization limits on the nodes, or used the
NodeUtilization agent.

One option would be to just change the default value. It seemed
more appropriate to rename the parameters, so that the change
becomes more visible to anyone upgrading.

@gao-yan
Copy link
Member

gao-yan commented Jun 12, 2018

I think this change makes sense, or at least we should use the default placement-strategy instead of "balanced" in crmsh bootstrap.

@knet-ci-bot
Copy link

Can one of the admins verify this patch?

@oalbrigt
Copy link
Contributor

add to whitelist

Having the VirtualDomain agent set utilization limits by default
is confusing and (in my opinion) not the correct choice. Someone
setting the agent up for the first time would not look at the
autoset parameters and consider utilization an advanced feature,
and the resource wouldn't be able to start unless they had also
set matching utilization limits on the nodes, or used the
NodeUtilization agent.

One option would be to just change the default value. It seemed
more appropriate to rename the parameters, so that the change
becomes more visible to anyone upgrading.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants