1:52 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adam Litke" <agl(a)us.ibm.com>
To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>, "Ayal Baron"
<abaron(a)redhat.com>, "Federico Simoncelli"
<fsimonce(a)redhat.com>, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org, vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:16:25 PM
Subject: Re: Managing async tasks
On Mon, Dec 17, 2012 at 12:15:08PM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Adam Litke" <agl(a)us.ibm.com> To:
> > vdsm-devel(a)lists.fedorahosted.org
> > Cc: "Dan Kenigsberg" <danken(a)redhat.com>, "Ayal
Baron"
> > <abaron(a)redhat.com>,
> > "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizrahi(a)redhat.com>, "Federico
Simoncelli"
> > <fsimonce(a)redhat.com>, engine-devel(a)ovirt.org Sent: Monday,
> > December 17,
> > 2012 12:00:49 PM Subject: Managing async tasks
> >
> > On today's vdsm call we had a lively discussion around how
> > asynchronous
> > operations should be handled in the future. In an effort to
> > include more
> > people in the discussion and to better capture the resulting
> > conversation I
> > would like to continue that discussion here on the mailing list.
> >
> > A lot of ideas were thrown around about how 'tasks' should be
> > handled in the
> > future. There are a lot of ways that it can be done. To
> > determine how we
> > should implement it, it's probably best if we start with a set of
> > requirements. If we can first agree on these, it should be easy
> > to find a
> > solution that meets them. I'll take a stab at identifying a
> > first set of
> > POSSIBLE requirements:
> >
> > - Standardized method for determining the result of an operation
> >
> > This is a big one for me because it directly affects the
> > consumability of
> > the API. If each verb has different semantics for discovering
> > whether it
> > has completed successfully, then the API will be nearly
> > impossible to use
> > easily.
> Since there is no way to assure if of some tasks completed
> successfully or
> failed, especially around the murky waters of storage, I say this
> requirement
> should be removed. At least not in the context of a task.
I don't agree. Please feel free to convince me with some exampled.
If we
cannot provide feedback to a user as to whether their request has
been satisfied
or not, then we have some bigger problems to solve.
If VDSM sends a write command
to a storage server, and the connection hangs up before the ACK has returned.
The operation has been committed but VDSM has no way of knowing if that happened as far as
VDSM is concerned it got an ETIMEO or EIO.
This is the same problem that the engine has with VDSM.
If VDSM creates an image\VM\network\repo but the connection hangs up before the response
can be sent back as far as the engine is concerned the operation times out.
This is an inherent issue with clustering.
This is why I want to move away from tasks being *the* trackable objects.
Tasks should be short. As short as possible.
Run VM should just persist the VM information on the VDSM host and return. The rest of the
tracking should be done using the VM ID.
Create image should return once VDSM persisted the information about the request on the
repository and created the metadata files.
Tracking should be done on the repo or the imageId.
> >
> >
> > Sorry. That's my list :) Hopefully others will be willing to
> > add other
> > requirements for consideration.
> >
> > From my understanding, task recovery (stop, abort, rollback, etc)
> > will not
> > be generally supported and should not be a requirement.
> >
--
Adam Litke <agl(a)us.ibm.com>
IBM Linux Technology Center