4:07 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
To: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:45:25 AM
Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Updates in VdsUpdateRuntimeInfo
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Barak Azulay" <bazulay(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 10:09:09 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Updates in VdsUpdateRuntimeInfo
>
> On 06/12/2013 09:41 AM, Barak Azulay wrote:
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim(a)redhat.com>
> >> To: "Liran Zelkha" <lzelkha(a)redhat.com>
> >> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> >> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 4:00:21 PM
> >> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] Updates in VdsUpdateRuntimeInfo
> >>
> >> On 06/11/2013 03:26 PM, Liran Zelkha wrote:
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> I'm checking performance for VdsUpdateRunTimeInfo.
> >>> Naturally, much of the performance surrounds database activity
> >>> (getVmsRunningOnVds queries, updateDeviceRuntimeInfo, updateVmDynamic)
> >>>
> >>> Few questions:
> >>> 1. I have implemented batch updates for procedure
> >>> UpdateVmDeviceRuntimeInfo
> >>> for improved performance.
> >>> 2. Seems like the only parameters UpdateVmDeviceRuntimeInfo is getting
> >>> are
> >>> vm_id,vm_device_id,address and alias. Are those rapidly changing, or
> >>> will
> >>> it be beneficial to implement caching on those updates (to ensure
> >>> not-required updates do not travel to the database).
> >>
> >> slowly changing, but how will you cover all flows changing these devices
> >> to invalidate the cache (iiuc, this table is modified by engine when
> >> adding devices to a VM as well?)
> >
> >
> > I don't think that in the device run time info we need to invalidate once
> > we add a device.
> > This is a specific case where we actually get the information from the
> > VDSM
> > (addresses are received from libvirt)
> > The commands IIRC are first send to VDSM and than update the runtime info
> > only on changed info (we can also hash it),
> > It may put the placeholder in the DB first but it still relies on the
> > data
> > received from VDSM.
>
> if this table is only updated from vdsm to save it, i agree.
> but isn't the engine also manipulating it?
> wasn't there a request to be able to maybe edit the addresses some day?
Even if there was such a request, we still update when we receive the info
from libvirt.
Anyway there are obviously a few improvements to be done before caching.
- update only when info received from VDSM change (need to verify it is the
practice here)
This should be the behavior right now
There is a hash column in vm_dynamic , this hash is passed by VDSM
We are updating only VMs that change their hash value
- do batch update for the new updated data received.
- do the hashing (of vm device runtime info) on VDSM for the data , and
update only when hash changes
- caching ...
Barak
>
> _______________________________________________
> Engine-devel mailing list
> Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Engine-devel mailing list
Engine-devel(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/engine-devel