Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version

From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM > Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > > To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel(a)redhat.com&gt; > > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > 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&gt; > > > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak(a)redhat.com&gt; > > > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > > 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&gt; > > > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel(a)ovirt.org&gt; > > > > 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 > Ok, I may have missed the other pattern, could you explain which one do you mean? Balloon does not very different from smartcard, it is there in VM.