Re: [ovirt-devel] [vdsm] vdsm sync meeting minutes April 1st, 2014

From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "VDSM Project Development" <vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org&gt;, devel(a)ovirt.org, laravot(a)redhat.com, nsoffer(a)redhat.com, fsimonce(a)redhat.com Cc: lyarwood(a)redhat.com Sent: Wednesday, April 9, 2014 3:01:31 PM Subject: Re: [vdsm] vdsm sync meeting minutes April 1st, 2014 On Wed, Apr 02, 2014 at 09:29:09AM +0100, danken(a)redhat.com wrote: > > - We had a very (too) heated debate about ignoring failures of > setDomainRegularRole() in http://gerrit.ovirt.org/24495/ and > http://gerrit.ovirt.org/25424. > > The pain point is that relying on domain role (master/regular) is > faulty by design. We cannot avoid the cases where a pool has more than > one domain with a master role written in its metadata. > > One side argued that oVirt should be fixed to handle this unescapable > truth, or at least enumerate the places where Vdsm and Engine, both > current and old, depend on master role uniqueness. > > The other side argued that this is not a priority task, and that we > should try to "garbage-collect" known-bad master roles as a courtesy > to people digging into domain metadata, and as a means to lessen the > problem until we kill the pool concept in the upcoming version. > > I hope that I present the debate fairly enough. In order to move these two patches forward, how about: - Limit the usage of the catching-all "except Exception" and replace it with swalling only the expected IO error - Add a comment about setDomainRegularRole() being called only as a courtesy garbage-collection attempt. - Conduct a survey on whether migrateMaster is used by anyone. No supported Engine has it, but I there was a suggestion that it was still expected via the command line.