On 2014/04/22 14:11:08, jameinel wrote:
> On 2014/04/22 12:42:23, axw wrote:
> > On 2014/04/22 12:32:29, jameinel wrote:
> > > Please take a look.
> >
> > I originally just defaulted it to 1, but rog asked me to take out
the default
> so
> > that we can, in the future, change the command to maintain the
current
> > availability. That would enable a simple cron job to periodically
"juju
> > ensure-availability", replacing unavailable state servers and
reinstating
> > available ones.
> ensure-availability 1 can't ever do anything.
> Because if 1 machine is dead, there is nobody to contact to set up
availability.
> And if you pass 1 to a system that has 3, you get a message about "you
cannot
> reduce the number", because we would be trying to decrease from 3 to
1.
That should be fixed eventually - we should allow people to reduce their
state server count.
> There is room to say that "ensure-availability" with nothing specified
is
> actually -1, which means "3 if you are currently running with only 1,
and N if
> you are currently running with N".
That was the plan.
> I would be happy to make that change, so that we allow -1 or 0 to be
passed up,
> and then interpret it according to the above rules.
On 2014/04/22 14:11:08, jameinel wrote: availability" , replacing unavailable state servers and
> On 2014/04/22 12:42:23, axw wrote:
> > On 2014/04/22 12:32:29, jameinel wrote:
> > > Please take a look.
> >
> > I originally just defaulted it to 1, but rog asked me to take out
the default
> so
> > that we can, in the future, change the command to maintain the
current
> > availability. That would enable a simple cron job to periodically
"juju
> > ensure-
reinstating
> > available ones.
> ensure-availability 1 can't ever do anything.
> Because if 1 machine is dead, there is nobody to contact to set up
availability.
> And if you pass 1 to a system that has 3, you get a message about "you
cannot
> reduce the number", because we would be trying to decrease from 3 to
1.
That should be fixed eventually - we should allow people to reduce their
state server count.
> There is room to say that "ensure- availability" with nothing specified
is
> actually -1, which means "3 if you are currently running with only 1,
and N if
> you are currently running with N".
That was the plan.
> I would be happy to make that change, so that we allow -1 or 0 to be
passed up,
> and then interpret it according to the above rules.
SGTM
https:/ /codereview. appspot. com/90160044/