[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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Sunday, March 10, 2013 9:36:46 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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)
Omer, This is WIP, so a few bit are still in the works. Generally speaking model and action are needed since we should be able to use it for template creation, OVF*, and user interaction (user may choose a different model or watchdog for specific VM). Do you recommend on keeping this as spec-param?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
the difference is that balloon is not in vm_static table at all (the only place in the db for it is in vm_devices) and smartcard has 'is_smartcard_enabled' field in vm_static in addition to vm_devices (which is not needed..) the way i think we (currently) need to work with devices is: add a parameter for it in the parameters, and use it in add/update (/run-once?) (as done for balloon) i don't know what is the use of the field balloonEnabled in VM, i don't see any use of it.. going forward we need to think if we want to expose devices to frontend, so then we can drop the encapsulation and just use list of devices in VmBase or something like that
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:25:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
the difference is that balloon is not in vm_static table at all (the only place in the db for it is in vm_devices) and smartcard has 'is_smartcard_enabled' field in vm_static in addition to vm_devices (which is not needed..)
the way i think we (currently) need to work with devices is: add a parameter for it in the parameters, and use it in add/update (/run-once?) (as done for balloon) i don't know what is the use of the field balloonEnabled in VM, i don't see any use of it..
going forward we need to think if we want to expose devices to frontend, so then we can drop the encapsulation and just use list of devices in VmBase or something like that
Or VMDeviceBase... In the meantime, it seems that watchdog needs to use spec params as vga card does.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:25:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
the difference is that balloon is not in vm_static table at all (the only place in the db for it is in vm_devices) and smartcard has 'is_smartcard_enabled' field in vm_static in addition to vm_devices (which is not needed..)
Ok, so what you want is that - the engine should query the devices each time the VM record is set (from DAO's or Action) XOR - the client code (rest-api and frontend) should query the devices to figure out if the watchdog is there
the way i think we (currently) need to work with devices is: add a parameter for it in the parameters, and use it in add/update (/run-once?) (as done for balloon)
run once for watchdog? why?
i don't know what is the use of the field balloonEnabled in VM, i don't see any use of it..
It is a write-only property.
going forward we need to think if we want to expose devices to frontend, so then we can drop the encapsulation and just use list of devices in VmBase or something like that
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:46:06 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:25:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
the difference is that balloon is not in vm_static table at all (the only place in the db for it is in vm_devices) and smartcard has 'is_smartcard_enabled' field in vm_static in addition to vm_devices (which is not needed..)
Ok, so what you want is that - the engine should query the devices each time the VM record is set (from DAO's or Action) XOR - the client code (rest-api and frontend) should query the devices to figure out if the watchdog is there
i prefer this approach, as we do with other sub-collections of vms (disks,networks..) but if we don't expose devices from the engine, so we need some other way of doing it (client specific query for "is XXX device enabled?" or engine set it in the VM record as you suggested.
the way i think we (currently) need to work with devices is: add a parameter for it in the parameters, and use it in add/update (/run-once?) (as done for balloon)
run once for watchdog? why?
for watchdog probably not, i meant in general with devices
i don't know what is the use of the field balloonEnabled in VM, i don't see any use of it..
It is a write-only property.
going forward we need to think if we want to expose devices to frontend, so then we can drop the encapsulation and just use list of devices in VmBase or something like that
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2013 2:41:38 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 6:46:06 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 1:25:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 12:15:39 PM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@ovirt.org> Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 11:12:48 AM Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] new engine watchdog version
----- Original Message -----
From: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> To: "Omer Frenkel" <ofrenkel@redhat.com> Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> > To: "Laszlo Hornyak" <lhornyak@redhat.com> > Cc: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@redhat.com> > > To: "engine-devel" <engine-devel@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@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.
the difference is that balloon is not in vm_static table at all (the only place in the db for it is in vm_devices) and smartcard has 'is_smartcard_enabled' field in vm_static in addition to vm_devices (which is not needed..)
Ok, so what you want is that - the engine should query the devices each time the VM record is set (from DAO's or Action) XOR - the client code (rest-api and frontend) should query the devices to figure out if the watchdog is there
i prefer this approach, as we do with other sub-collections of vms (disks,networks..)
You get these sub-collections with another http request. E.g. /api/vms/<GUID>/disks and then /api/vms/<GUID>/notworks The difference is that watchdog is not a sub-collection, it is in the VM structure. So I guess I would have to add some extra query to the mapping code of the rest-api. Michael? Is this ok for you?
but if we don't expose devices from the engine, so we need some other way of doing it (client specific query for "is XXX device enabled?" or engine set it in the VM record as you suggested.
the way i think we (currently) need to work with devices is: add a parameter for it in the parameters, and use it in add/update (/run-once?) (as done for balloon)
run once for watchdog? why?
for watchdog probably not, i meant in general with devices
ok, that's in the SEP-field for now
i don't know what is the use of the field balloonEnabled in VM, i don't see any use of it..
It is a write-only property.
going forward we need to think if we want to expose devices to frontend, so then we can drop the encapsulation and just use list of devices in VmBase or something like that
participants (3)
-
Doron Fediuck -
Laszlo Hornyak -
Omer Frenkel