----- Original Message -----
From: "Liran Zelkha" <liran.zelkha@gmail.com> To: "Kobi Ianko" <kobi@redhat.com> Cc: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com>, devel@linode01.ovirt.org, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:40:13 PM Subject: Re: [Devel] [Engine-devel] vds_dynamic refactor
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:37 PM, Kobi Ianko <kobi@redhat.com> wrote:
Joining in... From my point of view, in real life a user should have that many VDSs on one Engine (from a DB point of view). Modern DB system handles tables with millions of records and many relations, Do we really have a performance issue here? We could prefer a more easy to maintain implantation in this case over DB performance
Yes we do. We make many queries on the VDS view, which is a VERY complex view.
Actually I quite agree with Kobi, what is the plan for VMs? why do we start with VDS... what is the biggest deploy do you know of?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com> To: "Liran Zelkha" <liran.zelkha@gmail.com> Cc: devel@linode01.ovirt.org, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:32:26 PM Subject: Re: [Devel] [Engine-devel] vds_dynamic refactor
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liran Zelkha" <liran.zelkha@gmail.com> To: "Gilad Chaplik" <gchaplik@redhat.com> Cc: "Itamar Heim" <iheim@redhat.com>, devel@linode01.ovirt.org, "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Sunday, April 6, 2014 3:26:24 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] vds_dynamic refactor
On Sun, Apr 6, 2014 at 3:18 PM, Gilad Chaplik <gchaplik@redhat.com> wrote:
----- 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 :-)
I think we do but not sure. Will check.
Of course it is, that was a rhetorical question :-) (a lot of emoticons and LOLs ;-))
Still holds my original thought for having vds_on_boot.
Let's talk f2f on Tuesday?
I'd prefer to reach conclusions here, I'd like everyone to be involved in a root issue like this one.
What is the update frequency of this field?
which field? status? pending resources? on boot fields? iinm, status is updated mostly by user actions, at least in positive scenarios, and not that often.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel