Re: [Engine-devel] cluster emulation mode feature

----- Original Message ----- > From: "Roy Golan" <rgolan(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org > Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 12:33:26 PM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] cluster emulation mode feature > > On Thu 06 Jun 2013 10:20:30 AM IDT, Omer Frenkel wrote: >> >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Roy Golan" <rgolan(a)redhat.com&gt; >>> To: engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 8:17:54 AM >>> Subject: [Engine-devel] cluster emulation mode feature >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> A new wiki has been published on Cluster Emulation mode >>> http://www.ovirt.org/Cluster_emulation_modes >>> >>> Please review. >>> >>> Thanks, >>> Roy >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Engine-devel mailing list >>> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel >>> >> >> maybe better to name host field as supported_emulated_machines - since it >> holds the list of supported as reported from vdsm. >> > will change if this seems clearer seems clearer to me.

>> the following is a copy from the wiki >> " >> consider this pseudo-code: >> >> operational = false >> if cluster.emulationMode == NULL >> for configVal in Config.ClusterEmulationMode(3.3) >> if configVal in host.emulationModes >> cluster.emulationMode = configVal >> operational = true >> else if clusterEmulationMode in host.emulationMode >> operational = true >> if (!operational) >> set host non operationl, reason = UNSUPPORTED_EMULATION_MODE >> " >> >> first, i guess where you write '3.3' its actually should be >> 'cluster.compatibility' > yes its just a visual notion of the version >> another thing, the configuration will probably have more than 1 option for >> emulated machine, >> for example 3.3 rhel could have {(for EL-)RHEL6.4.0,RHEL6.3.0,..,(for >> other-)pc-1.3,pc-1.2..} >> we need to make sure the list is used ordered so that the greatest value >> will be first, >> since if host supports many, the latest will be used. >> in cpu-flags there is a specific number to do this order, maybe same >> approach can be taken here, >> as i'm not sure the RHEL/pc values are consistent (on my f18 i also have >> 'pc-i440fx-1.4') > isn't the order of the list enough? > basically yes, it means we assume users who will change it will be aware the order matters. im ok with that because i assume not many changes will be done here (as this just the defaults)