----- Original Message -----
> From: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com>
> To: "Liran Zelkha" <liran.zelkha@gmail.com>

> Cc: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com>, devel@linode01.ovirt.org, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org>
> Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2014 11:33:12 AM
> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] vds_dynamic refactor
>

> On 04/06/2014 11:32 AM, Liran Zelkha wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 11:22 AM, Itamar Heim <iheim@redhat.com
> > <mailto:iheim@redhat.com>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 04/03/2014 07:51 PM, Liran Zelkha wrote:
> >
> >         The problem is with both updates and selects.
> >         For selects - to get all the information for the VDS we have
> >         multiple
> >         joins. Adding another one will hurt performance even more.
> >         For updates - we have vds_static thats hardly changed.
> >         vds_statistics
> >         that changes all the time. vds_dynamic is not changed allot - but
> >         is
> >         updated all the time because of the status. I think it's best to
> >         split
> >         it to the two existing tables (BTW - relevant for VM as well)
> >
> >
> >     but we don't update it unless the status has changed, which is a
> >     rare occurance?
> >
> > Actually - no. We can definitely see times we are updating vds_dynamic
> > with no reason at all. I tried to create patches for that - but it
> > happens from many different places in the code.
>
> what would be updated vds_dyanmic for status not originating in update
> run time info?

We have separate DB flows for that (updateStatus and updatePartialVdsDynamicCalc and more in VdsDynamicDAODbFacadeImpl).
A question: do you know if we update status in updateVdsDynamic? :-) not sure but I found a possible race for pending resources (cpu, mem), LOL :-)

Still holds my original thought for having vds_on_boot. 

>