Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version

From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:59:53 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 8:36:46 AM > > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version > > > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > > 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(a)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