<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Philipp Reisner wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:200903181544.32090.philipp.reisner@linbit.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Will it be possible (in a future release?) to omit the device clause in
the resource definition
if the application will only use the symlinks and doesn't care for the
actual minor device used?
So that the using systems doesn't need to check for unallocated device
numbers during new resource creation / resource move to another cluster
system.
<!---->
Actually we discussed that here at LINBIT already, we might do that
some when. BTW, you will likely end up with different minors on the
two ends of the resource. -> That will break NFS fail over, as long
as you do not set the fsid of NFS.
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
Thanks for the explanation - I understand - so as with other
parameters some usage scenarios will always set them explicitly and
others might be able to get along without them in the future..<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:200903181544.32090.philipp.reisner@linbit.com"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">*) include statement:
Although we have not yet changed the configuration examples, but now
it is possible to have a drbd.conf that looks like this:
</pre>
</blockquote>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">Oops.
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://git.drbd.org/?p=drbd-8.3.git;a=commitdiff;h=997387d334d2554f57f7c8d6599b4b571e318927;hp=f4b052773f1020d8a0d29009e2b9d8772a737493">http://git.drbd.org/?p=drbd-8.3.git;a=commitdiff;h=997387d334d2554f57f7c8d6599b4b571e318927;hp=f4b052773f1020d8a0d29009e2b9d8772a737493</a>
Thanks for pointing it out!
</pre>
</blockquote>
Thanks again for the very fast response !<br>
<br>
WR,<br>
Bruno<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>