Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com>
To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com>
Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
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>
> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com>
> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> 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>
> > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org>
> > 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