On 03/17/2017 11:07 PM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On 17 Mar 2017, at 15:57, Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com> wrote:
On 03/16/2017 08:03 PM, Francesco Romani wrote:
On 03/16/2017 01:26 PM, Francesco Romani wrote:
On 03/16/2017 11:47 AM, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On 16 Mar 2017, at 09:45, Francesco Romani <fromani@redhat.com> wrote:
We talked about sending storage device purely on metadata, letting Vdsm rebuild them and getting the XML like today.
In the other direction, Vdsm will pass through the XML (perhaps only parts of it, e.g. the devices subtree) like before.
This way we can minimize the changes we are uncertain of, and more importantly, we can minimize the risky changes.
The following is a realistic example of how the XML could look like if we send all but the storage devices. It is built using my pyxmlpickle module (see [3] below). That’s quite verbose. How much work would it need to actually minimize it and turn it into something more simple. Most such stuff should go away and I believe it would be beneficial to make it difficult to use to discourage using metadata as a generic junkyard It is verbose because it is generic - indeed perhaps too generic. I can try something else based on a concept from Martin Polednik. Will follow up soon. Early preview: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:vi...
still plenty of TODOs, I expect to be reviewable material worst case monday morning. This is how typical XML could look like:
<metadata> <ovirt-tune:qos /> <ovirt-vm:vm /> <devices> <ovirt-instance:graphics> not under the <ovirt-vm:vm>? any reason?
No reason, I'll move under it Bests, -- Francesco Romani Red Hat Engineering Virtualization R & D IRC: fromani