[Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version

Laszlo Hornyak lhornyak at redhat.com
Mon Mar 11 10:15:39 UTC 2013



----- Original Message -----
> From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> 
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:59:53 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel at redhat.com>
> > > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 8:36:46 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak at redhat.com>
> > > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel at ovirt.org>
> > > > Sent: Friday, March 8, 2013 7:18:59 PM
> > > > Subject: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
> > > > 
> > > > Hi,
> > > > 
> > > > I uploaded a new version of the watchdog patch. This patch is
> > > > still
> > > > a
> > > > work in progress, it adds audit log alerts to the
> > > > functionality.
> > > > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/12419/
> > > > 
> > > > Feature page:
> > > > http://www.ovirt.org/Features/Watchdog_engine_support
> > > > 
> > > > Laszlo
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Engine-devel mailing list
> > > > Engine-devel at ovirt.org
> > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
> > > > 
> > > 
> > > Hi,
> > > i looked at the patch and there is something i don't understand,
> > > i see you are treating the watchdog as a vm device, which is
> > > great,
> > > so why do we need to save the device details in vm_static table
> > > in
> > > addition to the vm_devices?
> > > i think its even not used at all (only setting the device in
> > > command
> > > which could be parameters, no need to persist)
> > > 
> > 
> > Hi Omer,
> > 
> > Thanks, I hoped someone will come up with that question :) The
> > answer
> > is that I followed the established design patterns in the backend.
> > See smartcard and memory balloon, probably others. The motivation
> > for this pattern could be that in case of these devices, you must
> > have the settings in the VM data, not separately in the devices.
> > Also when vdsbroker builds the devices list, it just asks the
> > device
> > list. The redundancy is already there, we can make it differently
> > in
> > this case but that will present the readers with a puzzle: why this
> > pattern in feature X, why that pattern in feature Y...
> > So I would recommend to leave it like this for now and schedule a
> > cleanup on device handling. Devices deserve a cleanup.
> > 
> > Thx,
> > Laszlo
> > 
> 
> i agree there is a mess that requires clean-up,
> but i don't think its a good thing to keep piling up the mess,
> i don't like it that smartcard is there, but some other devices are
> ok (balloon and payload)
> so we already have 2 'patterns', lets go with the right one..
> and answering also @Doron's question - yes the device data should be
> kept with the device
> 

Ok, I may have missed the other pattern, could you explain which one do you mean?
Balloon does not very different from smartcard, it is there in VM.



More information about the Devel mailing list