Bug 2182383

This is not a bug per the current Pacemaker design -- each daemon defines metadata for the cluster options that it uses, and certain options are used by both the controller and scheduler. Then "enable-acl" and "cluster-ipc-limit" are used by the CIB manager (which doesn't have a metadata option) but not the controller or scheduler, so they aren't documented in metadata anywhere.

Of course, that's not an ideal design, so we can use this bz as a feature request for a single comprehensive list of cluster option metadata, similar to Bug 2163699 for meta-attributes.

(In reply to Ken Gaillot from comment #1)
> Then "enable-acl" and "cluster-ipc-limit" are used by the CIB manager (which doesn't have a metadata option) but not the controller or scheduler, so they aren't documented in metadata anywhere.

They are documented in metadata in pacemaker-based. Pcs reads and processes metadata from pacemaker-based, otherwise it wouldn't consider "enable-acl" and "cluster-ipc-limit" to be allowed cluster properties and would require --force to be specified for them to be set.

> This is not a bug per the current Pacemaker design -- each daemon defines metadata for the cluster options that it uses, and certain options are used by both the controller and scheduler.

Just to put this bz into context:
The problem is that 'pcs property describe' then prints "no-quorum-policy" twice. And when validating a value of the property, pcs chooses one of the duplicate definitions. That's not a big deal now, but if the definitions ever start to differ, it will become a problem.

(In reply to Tomas Jelinek from comment #2)
> (In reply to Ken Gaillot from comment #1)
> > Then "enable-acl" and "cluster-ipc-limit" are used by the CIB manager (which doesn't have a metadata option) but not the controller or scheduler, so they aren't documented in metadata anywhere.
> 
> They are documented in metadata in pacemaker-based. Pcs reads and processes
> metadata from pacemaker-based, otherwise it wouldn't consider "enable-acl"
> and "cluster-ipc-limit" to be allowed cluster properties and would require
> --force to be specified for them to be set.

Huh, I always thought it didn't for some reason. Well, that's good :)
 
> > This is not a bug per the current Pacemaker design -- each daemon defines metadata for the cluster options that it uses, and certain options are used by both the controller and scheduler.
> 
> Just to put this bz into context:
> The problem is that 'pcs property describe' then prints "no-quorum-policy"
> twice. And when validating a value of the property, pcs chooses one of the
> duplicate definitions. That's not a big deal now, but if the definitions
> ever start to differ, it will become a problem.

Yep, it's just a limitation of the current design. They should always be identical (it would be a bug if they weren't).

Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug.

This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.