Vdsm sync 5/1 summary after short delay
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke) - Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand with full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll reraise this topic next week with pioter) - Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps) - Exception patches - still on progress, please review ( https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868) - python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it Greetings, -- *Yaniv Bronhaim.*
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline. On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <ybronhei@redhat.com> wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand with full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review ( https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- *Yaniv Bronhaim.*
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com> wrote:
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <ybronhei@redhat.com> wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand with full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never approved this change for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for jsonrpc issues. We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema). - https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de... - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of removing the spm, and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support. Example new verb merged recently: https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966d... In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are passed as integers, not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did not support large numbers (> 2**31 - 1). So in the schema, we require now a uint: +## +# @CreateVolumeInfo: +# ... +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes ... +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size of volume +# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned +# volume on block storage. +# +# Since: 4.18 +## +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo', + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID', + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat', + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str', + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID', + '*initial_size': 'uint'}} To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py: + def sdm_create_volume(self, args): + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj]) + + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will + # restore them to their proper int types. + vol_info = args[1] + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = str(vol_info[param]) + + res = self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args) + if res['status']['code']: + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message'] + + return 0, '' + To support vdsClient, we added this: + def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info): + sdm = API.SDM() + + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc, + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back + # to the correct type here. + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = int(vol_info[param]) + + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info) + All this work is waste effort on our side. We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm? I think we should not support it, after two version we support both xmlrpc and jsonrpc. If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for vdsClient, We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for sos plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/ But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line client is a must for developing vdsm. Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that. Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review (https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com> wrote:
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <ybronhei@redhat.com>
wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand
with
full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never approved this change for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for jsonrpc issues.
No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version for this reason, but no need for more. We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant. We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with it. If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about it.
We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema). - https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de... - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc
That's great. As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs.
However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of removing the spm, and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support.
Example new verb merged recently:
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966d...
In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are passed as integers, not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did not support large numbers (> 2**31 - 1).
So in the schema, we require now a uint:
+## +# @CreateVolumeInfo: +# ... +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes ... +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size of
volume
+# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned +# volume on block storage. +# +# Since: 4.18 +## +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo', + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID', + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat', + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str', + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID', + '*initial_size': 'uint'}}
To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, args): + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj]) + + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will + # restore them to their proper int types. + vol_info = args[1] + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = str(vol_info[param]) + + res = self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args) + if res['status']['code']: + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message'] + + return 0, '' +
To support vdsClient, we added this:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info): + sdm = API.SDM() + + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc, + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back + # to the correct type here. + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = int(vol_info[param]) + + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info) +
All this work is waste effort on our side.
We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?
I think we should not support it, after two version we support both xmlrpc and jsonrpc.
I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant.
If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for vdsClient,
We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for sos plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/
But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line client is a must for developing vdsm.
Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.
Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for
next
major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review (https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com>
wrote:
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <ybronhei@redhat.com> wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand
with
full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never approved this change for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for jsonrpc issues.
No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version for this reason, but no need for more. We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant. We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with it. If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about it.
We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema). - https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de... - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc
That's great. As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs.
However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of removing the spm, and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support.
Example new verb merged recently:
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966d...
In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are passed as integers, not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did not support large numbers (> 2**31 - 1).
So in the schema, we require now a uint:
+## +# @CreateVolumeInfo: +# ... +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes ... +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size of
volume
+# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned +# volume on block storage. +# +# Since: 4.18 +## +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo', + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID', + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat', + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str', + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID', + '*initial_size': 'uint'}}
To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, args): + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj]) + + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will + # restore them to their proper int types. + vol_info = args[1] + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = str(vol_info[param]) + + res = self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args) + if res['status']['code']: + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message'] + + return 0, '' +
To support vdsClient, we added this:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info): + sdm = API.SDM() + + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc, + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back + # to the correct type here. + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = int(vol_info[param]) + + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info) +
All this work is waste effort on our side.
We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?
I think we should not support it, after two version we support both xmlrpc and jsonrpc.
I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant.
If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for vdsClient,
We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for sos plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/
But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line client
is
a must for developing vdsm.
Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.
Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
I would love to get rid of it but we need to make sure that none of the code is using xmlrpc. I think that we need to prioritize tasks before we can stop using it. It would be great to change format of the schema for new client and drop/replace code which is still using xmlrpc.
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for
next
major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review (https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
------=_Part_10719691_722243383.1452539910403 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit ----- Original Message -----
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Oved Ourfali < oourfali@redhat.com > wrote:
On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" < nsoffer@redhat.com > wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali < oourfali@redhat.com > wrote:
Thanks for the summary!
See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim < ybronhei@redhat.com > wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand with
full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said that we'll
reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have
all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of
code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never
approved this change
for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for
jsonrpc issues.
No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version for this reason, but no need for more.
We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant.
We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with it.
If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about it.
We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of
the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema).
- https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de...
- https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc
That's great. As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs.
However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next
version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of removing the spm,
and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support.
Example new verb merged recently:
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966d...
In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are passed
as integers,
not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did
not support large
numbers (> 2**31 - 1).
So in the schema, we require now a uint:
+##
+# @CreateVolumeInfo:
+#
...
+# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes
...
+# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size of volume
+# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned
+# volume on block storage.
+#
+# Since: 4.18
+##
+{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo',
+ 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID',
+ 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat',
+ 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str',
+ '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID',
+ '*initial_size': 'uint'}}
To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, args):
+ validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj])
+
+ # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will
+ # restore them to their proper int types.
+ vol_info = args[1]
+ for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size':
+ if param in vol_info:
+ vol_info[param] = str(vol_info[param])
+
+ res = self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args)
+ if res['status']['code']:
+ return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message']
+
+ return 0, ''
+
To support vdsClient, we added this:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info):
+ sdm = API.SDM()
+
+ # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc,
+ # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back
+ # to the correct type here.
+ for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size':
+ if param in vol_info:
+ vol_info[param] = int(vol_info[param])
+
+ return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info)
+
All this work is waste effort on our side.
We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?
I think we should not support it, after two version we support both
xmlrpc and jsonrpc.
I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant.
If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for vdsClient,
We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for sos
plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction:
But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line client is
a must for developing vdsm.
Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test
everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.
Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
I would love to get rid of it but we need to make sure that none of the code is using xmlrpc. I think that we need to prioritize tasks before we can stop using it.
It would be great to change format of the schema for new client and drop/replace code which is still using xmlrpc.
I agree, it does not make sense to maintain both protocols. Let's think for a minute how it will work with the customers. If the move from RHEV 3 to 4 would be similar as from 2 to 3, when 4 is a complete new system and some migration path would be needed, I think it is ok to say that we stop supporting all the old hosts running RHEL6 that can do XML-RPC only. But 3.6 definitely should still support XML RPC, because some customers would continue running old hosts in old compatibility mode clusters. Because we support it. https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhev/ When working on a command line client, also keep in mind that customers would attempt using it on their production environment, even if it may create inconsistency with their engine database. It would be good to enable some kind of production mode, where the customer would have to hit a confirmation yes, if the command may affect the global setup (all storage operations). There is at least one customer that I know of that is using vdsClient in their production system (I protested as much as I could).
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve. It
requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next
major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and
stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import
without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something
I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
--
Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@ovirt.org
> + # to the correct type here.<br> > + for param in 'virtual_size'= , 'initial_size':<br> > + if param in vol_info:<br> > + vol_info[para= m] =3D int(vol_info[param])<br> > +<br> > + return sdm.create_volume(= job_id, vol_info)<br> > +<br> ><br> > All this work is waste effor= t on our side.<br> ><br> > We should make a decision now - do we supp= ort xmlrpc in vdsm?<br> ><br> > I think we should not support it, aft= er two version we support both<br> > xmlrpc and jsonrpc.</p></div></div>= <p dir=3D"ltr">I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That'= s why in 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant.</p><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><d= iv class=3D"h5"><p dir=3D"ltr">><br> > If we stop supporting xmlrpc, = we must have a replacement for vdsClient,<br> ><br> > We need to have= commnad line client, both for development, and for sos<br> > plugin. I =
<div>It would be great to change format of the schema for new client and d= rop/replace<br></div><div>code which is still using xmlrpc.</div></div></di= v></div></blockquote><div>I agree, it does not make sense to maintain both =
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br> > ><br> > &= gt;<br> > ><br> > > ___________________________________________= ____<br> > > Devel mailing list<br> > > <a href=3D"mailto:Devel= @ovirt.org" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org">Deve= l@ovirt.org</a><br> > > <a href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/lis= tinfo/devel" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mail= man/listinfo/devel">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br></=
<br></div></div><div><br></div><div>-- <br></div><div><span name=3D"x"></s=
-- -- mku ------=_Part_10719691_722243383.1452539910403 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable <html><body><div style=3D"font-family: Verdana; font-size: 12pt; color: #00= 0066"><div><br></div><div><br></div><hr id=3D"zwchr"><blockquote style=3D"b= order-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:5px;color:#000;fo= nt-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;font-family:Helveti= ca,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;" data-mce-style=3D"border-left: 2px sol= id #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #000; font-weight: = normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-family: Helvetica,A= rial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><br><div class=3D"gmail= _extra"><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote">On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Ove= d Ourfali <span dir=3D"ltr"><<a href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com" targ= et=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com">oourfali@redhat.= com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"mar= gin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex" data-mce-style= =3D"margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><p= dir=3D"ltr"><br> On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <<a href=3D"mail= to:nsoffer@redhat.com" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@re= dhat.com">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > On Sun, Jan 1= 0, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <<a href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com"= target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com">oourfali@re= dhat.com</a>> wrote:<br> > > Thanks for the summary!<br> > >= See one comment inline.<br> > ><br> > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 a= t 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <<a href=3D"mailto:ybronhei@redhat.com" target= =3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:ybronhei@redhat.com">ybronhei@redhat.co= m</a>> wrote:<br> > >><br> > >><br> > >> (fro= mani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)<br> > >><br> > >> = - Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we stand with<b= r> > >> full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions an= d said that we'll<br> > >> reraise this topic next week with piote= r)<br> > >><br> > ><br> > > With regards to that, in o= rder to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have<br> > > all hosts in= jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of<br> > > = code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.<br> >= <br> > I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never<= br> > approved this change<br> > for 3.6. We need to keep the x= mlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for<br> > jsonrpc issues.<br> ></p><= p dir=3D"ltr">No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version f= or this reason, but no need for more. <br> We had a bug about that, and com= municated it to whomever is relevant. <br> We want to get rid of it entirel= y in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with it. <br> If you know of any issue = then please fix it now, or open a bug about it.</p><p dir=3D"ltr">> We j= ust fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of<br> &= gt; the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema).<br> > - <a hr= ef=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae= 7c488de7" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/= commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de7">https://github.com/oVirt/v= dsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de7</a><br> > - <a href= =3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"http= s://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402</a> VM.getDiskAl= ignment cannot be used in jsonrpc<br> ></p><p dir=3D"ltr">That's great. = As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs.</p><div><div class= =3D"h5"><p dir=3D"ltr">> However this is not the topic of the discussion= , we are discussion the next<br> > version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot = of new verbs as part of removing the spm,<br> > and we don't want to inv= est time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support.<br> ><br> > Example = new verb merged recently:<br> > <a href=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm= /commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966db" target=3D"_blank" data-mc= e-href=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10= 278404a966db">https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f= 6a10278404a966db</a><br> ><br> > In the new verbs, we cleaned up the = api, so integer values are passed<br> > as integers,<br> > not as str= ings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did<br> > not su= pport large<br> > numbers (> 2**31 - 1).<br> ><br> > So in the = schema, we require now a uint:<br> ><br> > +##<br> > +# @CreateVol= umeInfo:<br> > +#<br> > ...<br> > +# @virtual_size: The Volume siz= e in bytes<br> > ...<br> > +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, = the initial allocated size of volume<br> > +# in bytes. Allowed only whe= n creating a thinly provisioned<br> > +# volume on block storage.<br> &g= t; +#<br> > +# Since: 4.18<br> > +##<br> > +{'type': 'CreateVolume= Info',<br> > + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UU= ID',<br> > + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat',<br> &= gt; + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str',<br> > + '*parent_im= g_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID',<br> > + '*initial_size': 'uint'= }}<br> ><br> > To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingx= mlrpc.py:<br> ><br> > + def sdm_create_volume(self, args):<br> > += validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj])<br> > +<br> > + # Conv= ert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will<br> > + = # restore them to their proper int types.<br> > + vol_info =3D args[1]<b= r> > + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size':<br> > + if param = in vol_info:<br> > + vol_info[param] =3D str(vol_info[param])<br> > += <br> > + res =3D self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args)<br> > + if res['stat= us']['code']:<br> > + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['messa= ge']<br> > +<br> > + return 0, ''<br> > +<br> ><br> > To sup= port vdsClient, we added this:<br> ><br> > + def sdm_create_volume(se= lf, job_id, vol_info):<br> > + sdm =3D API.SDM()<br> > +<br> > + #= As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc,<br> >= ; + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back<br= think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction:<br> > <a hr= ef=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"h= ttps://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/</a><br> >= ;<br> > But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line= client is<br> > a must for developing vdsm.<br> ><br> > Adding Ah= aron - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test<br> > ev= erything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.<br> ><= br> > Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?<br> ><br></p></div>= </div></blockquote><div>I would love to get rid of it but we need to make s= ure that none of the code is using<br></div><div>xmlrpc. I think that we ne= ed to prioritize tasks before we can stop using it.<br><div><br></div></div= protocols.<br></div><div>Let's think for a minute how it will work with the= customers.<br></div><div>If the move from RHEV 3 to 4 would be similar as = from 2 to 3, when 4 is a complete new system and some migration path would = be needed, I think it is ok to say that we stop supporting all the old host= s running RHEL6 that can do XML-RPC only. But 3.6 definitely should still s= upport XML RPC, because some customers would continue running old hosts in = old compatibility mode clusters. Because we support it. <br></div><div>http= s://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhev/<br></div><div><br></div>= <div>When working on a command line client, also keep in mind that customer= s would attempt using it on their production environment, even if it may cr= eate inconsistency with their engine database. It would be good to enable s= ome kind of production mode, where the customer would have to hit a confirm= ation yes, if the command may affect the global setup (all storage operatio= ns). There is at least one customer that I know of that is using vdsClient = in their production system (I protested as much as I could).<br></div><bloc= kquote style=3D"border-left:2px solid #1010FF;margin-left:5px;padding-left:= 5px;color:#000;font-weight:normal;font-style:normal;text-decoration:none;fo= nt-family:Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif;font-size:12pt;" data-mce-style=3D"bor= der-left: 2px solid #1010FF; margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px; color: #0= 00; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; text-decoration: none; font-fa= mily: Helvetica,Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 12pt;"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div c= lass=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><div><br></div><blockquote = class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid= ;padding-left:1ex" data-mce-style=3D"margin: 0 0 0 .8ex; border-left: 1px #= ccc solid; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div class=3D"h5"><p d= ir=3D"ltr">> >><br> > >> - Moving from nose to pyte= st - generally good approach to achieve. It<br> > >> requires some= changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next<br> > >= > major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, a= nd<br> > >> stated few gaps)<br> > >><br> > >>&n= bsp; - Exception patches - still on progress, please review<br> > >&g= t; (<a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868" target=3D"_blank" data-mce-h= ref=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868</a>)<= br> > >><br> > >> - python3 effort to cover all asy= ncProc usage, and allowing utils import<br> > >> without having py= thon3-cpopen - <a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421" target=3D"_blank"= data-mce-href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/= 51421</a><br> > >> <a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441" targ= et=3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441">https://gerr= it.ovirt.org/49441</a> . still under review<br> > >><br> > >= > We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention somet= hing<br> > >> I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it<br> >= ; >><br> > >> Greetings,<br> > >><br> > >>= --<br> > >> Yaniv Bronhaim.<br> > >><br> > >> _= ______________________________________________<br> > >> Devel mail= ing list<br> > >> <a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" target=3D"_bl= ank" data-mce-href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br> > = >> <a href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" target= =3D"_blank" data-mce-href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel"= p></div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></blockquote><div><br><div= pan>--<br> mku<span name=3D"x"></span><br></div></div></body></html> ------=_Part_10719691_722243383.1452539910403--
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 8:18 PM, Marina Kalinin <mkalinin@redhat.com> wrote:
------------------------------
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:56 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com> wrote:
On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com>
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <ybronhei@redhat.com> wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we
stand with
full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said
wrote: that we'll
reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no piece of code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never approved this change for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for jsonrpc issues.
No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version for this reason, but no need for more. We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant. We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with it. If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about it.
We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True instead of the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema). - https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488de... - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc
That's great. As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs.
However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of removing the spm, and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient support.
Example new verb merged recently:
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a966d...
In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are passed as integers, not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc did not support large numbers (> 2**31 - 1).
So in the schema, we require now a uint:
+## +# @CreateVolumeInfo: +# ... +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes ... +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size of
volume
+# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned +# volume on block storage. +# +# Since: 4.18 +## +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo', + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID', + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat', + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str', + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID', + '*initial_size': 'uint'}}
To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, args): + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj]) + + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding will + # restore them to their proper int types. + vol_info = args[1] + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = str(vol_info[param]) + + res = self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args) + if res['status']['code']: + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message'] + + return 0, '' +
To support vdsClient, we added this:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info): + sdm = API.SDM() + + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of xmlrpc, + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them back + # to the correct type here. + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] = int(vol_info[param]) + + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info) +
All this work is waste effort on our side.
We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?
I think we should not support it, after two version we support both xmlrpc and jsonrpc.
I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant.
If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for vdsClient,
We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for sos plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best direction: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/
But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line client
is
a must for developing vdsm.
Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to test everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.
Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
I would love to get rid of it but we need to make sure that none of the code is using xmlrpc. I think that we need to prioritize tasks before we can stop using it.
It would be great to change format of the schema for new client and drop/replace code which is still using xmlrpc.
I agree, it does not make sense to maintain both protocols. Let's think for a minute how it will work with the customers. If the move from RHEV 3 to 4 would be similar as from 2 to 3, when 4 is a complete new system and some migration path would be needed, I think it is ok to say that we stop supporting all the old hosts running RHEL6 that can do XML-RPC only. But 3.6 definitely should still support XML RPC, because some customers would continue running old hosts in old compatibility mode clusters. Because we support it. https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/rhev/
Xmlrpc is can be still used for clusters lower than 3.6. There are no changes and people can still use the old hosts. With 3.6 cluster we ask to use jsonrpc so it is required to change protocol prior to cluster upgrade.
When working on a command line client, also keep in mind that customers would attempt using it on their production environment, even if it may create inconsistency with their engine database. It would be good to enable some kind of production mode, where the customer would have to hit a confirmation yes, if the command may affect the global setup (all storage operations). There is at least one customer that I know of that is using vdsClient in their production system (I protested as much as I could).
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to achieve.
It
requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item for next major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review (https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 . still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
-- -- mku
On 10 Jan 2016, at 14:56, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com> wrote: =20 =20 On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer@redhat.com = <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <oourfali@redhat.com =
<mailto:oourfali@redhat.com>> wrote:
Thanks for the summary! See one comment inline.
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim = <ybronhei@redhat.com <mailto:ybronhei@redhat.com>> wrote:
(fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)
- Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? where do we =
stand with
full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions and said =
reraise this topic next week with pioter)
With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, you = MUST have all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure no =
--Apple-Mail=_058DD6D0-D8BF-486E-80A4-9F57BA3E401E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 that we'll piece of
code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as well.
I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never approved this change for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a backup for jsonrpc issues.
=20 No we don't. And we won't. We had it around for one version for this = reason, but no need for more.=20 We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant.=20=
We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work = with it.=20 If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about = it. =20
We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs that were returning True = instead of the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema). - = https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c488= de7 = <https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b0ae7c48= 8de7> - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402 <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402> = VM.getDiskAlignment cannot be used in jsonrpc
=20 That's great. As said earlier, if you know of others please open bugs. =20 We also need to resolve the different behavior as demonstrated by [1] = where a long-open json-rpc call times out, whereas xml-rpc was much more = tolerant. Proper fix would be to change the verbs to end sooner and = change them to be asynchronous, I=E2=80=99m aware of migrationCreate and = destroy, but there are likely more.=20
version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of = removing the spm, and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient = support.
Example new verb merged recently: = https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a96= 6db = <https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a10278404a9= 66db>
In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are =
as integers, not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc = did not support large numbers (> 2**31 - 1).
So in the schema, we require now a uint:
+## +# @CreateVolumeInfo: +# ... +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes ... +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated size = of volume +# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned +# volume on block storage. +# +# Since: 4.18 +## +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo', + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID', + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat', + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str', + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID', + '*initial_size': 'uint'}}
To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, args): + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj]) + + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding = will + # restore them to their proper int types. + vol_info =3D args[1] + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] =3D str(vol_info[param]) + + res =3D self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args) + if res['status']['code']: + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message'] + + return 0, '' +
To support vdsClient, we added this:
+ def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info): + sdm =3D API.SDM() + + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of = xmlrpc, + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them = back + # to the correct type here. + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size': + if param in vol_info: + vol_info[param] =3D int(vol_info[param]) + + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info) +
All this work is waste effort on our side.
We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?
I think we should not support it, after two version we support both xmlrpc and jsonrpc. =20 I agree. But again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in = 4.0 xmlrpc will no longer be relevant. =20
If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for = vdsClient,
We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for = sos plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best =
Thanks, michal [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1188543 = <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1188543>> However this is = not the topic of the discussion, we are discussion the next passed direction:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/ <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/>
But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line = client is a must for developing vdsm.
Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to = test everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do that.
Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?
- Moving from nose to pytest - generally good approach to =
achieve. It
requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be an item = for next major version (nir already managed to run most of the tests with = it, and stated few gaps)
- Exception patches - still on progress, please review (https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868 <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868>)
- python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and allowing = utils import without having python3-cpopen - https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421 = <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441 <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441> . = still under review
We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to mention = something I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it
Greetings,
-- Yaniv Bronhaim.
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel = <http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org <mailto:Devel@ovirt.org> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel = <http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel>
Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
--Apple-Mail=_058DD6D0-D8BF-486E-80A4-9F57BA3E401E Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 <html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type" content=3D"text/html = charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; = -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" = class=3D""><br class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div = class=3D"">On 10 Jan 2016, at 14:56, Oved Ourfali <<a = href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com" class=3D"">oourfali@redhat.com</a>>= wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=3D""><p = dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><br class=3D""> On Jan 10, 2016 3:37 PM, "Nir Soffer" <<a = href=3D"mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com" class=3D"">nsoffer@redhat.com</a>> = wrote:<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Oved Ourfali <<a = href=3D"mailto:oourfali@redhat.com" class=3D"">oourfali@redhat.com</a>>= wrote:<br class=3D""> > > Thanks for the summary!<br class=3D""> > > See one comment inline.<br class=3D""> > ><br class=3D""> > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 2:49 PM, Yaniv Bronheim <<a = href=3D"mailto:ybronhei@redhat.com" class=3D"">ybronhei@redhat.com</a>>= wrote:<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> (fromani, nsoffer, ybronhei, alitke)<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> - Removing xmlrpc for good - who should accept it? = where do we stand with<br class=3D""> > >> full jsonrpc client ? (we didn't get to any conclusions = and said that we'll<br class=3D""> > >> reraise this topic next week with pioter)<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > ><br class=3D""> > > With regards to that, in order to move to 3.6 cluster level, = you MUST have<br class=3D""> > > all hosts in jsonrpc protocol. So, we just need to make sure = no piece of<br class=3D""> > > code uses that explicitly, and if so move that to jsonrpc as = well.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > I don't remember that this was discussed here, and storage never<br = class=3D""> > approved this change<br class=3D""> > for 3.6. We need to keep the xmlrpc option in 3.6, as a = backup for<br class=3D""> > jsonrpc issues.<br class=3D""> ></p><p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">No we don't. And we won't. We had it = around for one version for this reason, but no need for more. <br = class=3D""> We had a bug about that, and communicated it to whomever is relevant. = <br class=3D""> We want to get rid of it entirely in 4.0, so 3.6 cluster won't work with = it. <br class=3D""> If you know of any issue then please fix it now, or open a bug about it. = </p><p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">> We just fixed couple of jsonrpc verbs = that were returning True instead of<br class=3D""> > the correct return value (caused by incorrect schema).<br class=3D"">= > - <a = href=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01ed4b= 0ae7c488de7" = class=3D"">https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/0ca680700596564b4d6b0ef01e= d4b0ae7c488de7</a><br class=3D""> > - <a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402" = class=3D"">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/40402</a> VM.getDiskAlignment cannot = be used in jsonrpc<br class=3D""> ></p><p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">That's great. As said earlier, if you = know of others please open bugs. </p></div></blockquote><div>We also = need to resolve the different behavior as demonstrated by [1] where a = long-open json-rpc call times out, whereas xml-rpc was much more = tolerant. Proper fix would be to change the verbs to end sooner and = change them to be asynchronous, I=E2=80=99m aware of migrationCreate and = destroy, but there are likely more. </div><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>Thanks,</div><div>michal</div><div><br = class=3D""></div><div>[1] <a = href=3D"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1188543" = class=3D"">https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1188543</a></div>= <blockquote type=3D"cite" class=3D""><div class=3D""><p dir=3D"ltr" = class=3D"">> However this is not the topic of the discussion, we are = discussion the next<br class=3D""> > version (3.7/4.0). We are adding lot of new verbs as part of = removing the spm,<br class=3D""> > and we don't want to invest time in adding xmlrpc and vdsClient = support.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > Example new verb merged recently:<br class=3D""> > <a = href=3D"https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a102= 78404a966db" = class=3D"">https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/commit/bbbb72a192d8b54d21c8d65f6a= 10278404a966db</a><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > In the new verbs, we cleaned up the api, so integer values are = passed<br class=3D""> > as integers,<br class=3D""> > not as strings. Previously we use to require strings since xmlrpc = did<br class=3D""> > not support large<br class=3D""> > numbers (> 2**31 - 1).<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > So in the schema, we require now a uint:<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > +##<br class=3D""> > +# @CreateVolumeInfo:<br class=3D""> > +#<br class=3D""> > ...<br class=3D""> > +# @virtual_size: The Volume size in bytes<br class=3D""> > ...<br class=3D""> > +# @initial_size: #optional If specified, the initial allocated = size of volume<br class=3D""> > +# in bytes. Allowed only when creating a thinly provisioned<br = class=3D""> > +# volume on block storage.<br class=3D""> > +#<br class=3D""> > +# Since: 4.18<br class=3D""> > +##<br class=3D""> > +{'type': 'CreateVolumeInfo',<br class=3D""> > + 'data': {'sd_id': 'UUID', 'img_id': 'UUID', 'vol_id': 'UUID',<br = class=3D""> > + 'virtual_size': 'uint', 'vol_format': 'VolumeFormat',<br = class=3D""> > + 'disk_type': 'DiskType', 'description': 'str',<br class=3D""> > + '*parent_img_id': 'UUID', '*parent_vol_id': 'UUID',<br class=3D""> > + '*initial_size': 'uint'}}<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > To support xmlrpc, we added this ugly code in bindingxmlrpc.py:<br = class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > + def sdm_create_volume(self, args):<br class=3D""> > + validateArgTypes(args, [str, parse_json_obj])<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> > + # Convert large integers to strings. The server's xmlrpc binding = will<br class=3D""> > + # restore them to their proper int types.<br class=3D""> > + vol_info =3D args[1]<br class=3D""> > + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size':<br class=3D""> > + if param in vol_info:<br class=3D""> > + vol_info[param] =3D str(vol_info[param])<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> > + res =3D self.s.sdm_create_volume(*args)<br class=3D""> > + if res['status']['code']:<br class=3D""> > + return res['status']['code'], res['status']['message']<br = class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> > + return 0, ''<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > To support vdsClient, we added this:<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > + def sdm_create_volume(self, job_id, vol_info):<br class=3D""> > + sdm =3D API.SDM()<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> > + # As a workaround for the 32bit signed integer limitation of = xmlrpc,<br class=3D""> > + # allow large integers to be passed as strings. We convert them = back<br class=3D""> > + # to the correct type here.<br class=3D""> > + for param in 'virtual_size', 'initial_size':<br class=3D""> > + if param in vol_info:<br class=3D""> > + vol_info[param] =3D int(vol_info[param])<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> > + return sdm.create_volume(job_id, vol_info)<br class=3D""> > +<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > All this work is waste effort on our side.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > We should make a decision now - do we support xmlrpc in vdsm?<br = class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > I think we should not support it, after two version we support = both<br class=3D""> > xmlrpc and jsonrpc.</p><p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">I agree. But = again, 3.6 clusters will require jsonrpc. That's why in 4.0 xmlrpc will = no longer be relevant. </p><p dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"">><br class=3D""> > If we stop supporting xmlrpc, we must have a replacement for = vdsClient,<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > We need to have commnad line client, both for development, and for = sos<br class=3D""> > plugin. I think this patch, owned now by Piotr, is the best = direction:<br class=3D""> > <a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/" = class=3D"">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/35181/</a><br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > But we need to give this high priority, as having a command line = client is<br class=3D""> > a must for developing vdsm.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > Adding Aharon - supporting both xmlrpc and jsonrpc means we need to = test<br class=3D""> > everything twice, I don't think Aharion will like to do = that.<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > Piotr, Francesco, Dan, Adam: your thoughts?<br class=3D""> ><br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> - Moving from nose to pytest - generally good = approach to achieve. It<br class=3D""> > >> requires some changes in current testlib.py code. must be = an item for next<br class=3D""> > >> major version (nir already managed to run most of the = tests with it, and<br class=3D""> > >> stated few gaps)<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> - Exception patches - still on progress, please = review<br class=3D""> > >> (<a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868" = class=3D"">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/48868</a>)<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> - python3 effort to cover all asyncProc usage, and = allowing utils import<br class=3D""> > >> without having python3-cpopen - <a = href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421" = class=3D"">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/51421</a><br class=3D""> > >> <a href=3D"https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441" = class=3D"">https://gerrit.ovirt.org/49441</a> . still under review<br = class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> We didn't take notes during that talk, so if I forgot to = mention something<br class=3D""> > >> I apologize. Feel free to reply and raise it<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> Greetings,<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> --<br class=3D""> > >> Yaniv Bronhaim.<br class=3D""> > >><br class=3D""> > >> _______________________________________________<br = class=3D""> > >> Devel mailing list<br class=3D""> > >> <a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" = class=3D"">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br class=3D""> > >> <a href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" = class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br = class=3D""> > ><br class=3D""> > ><br class=3D""> > ><br class=3D""> > > _______________________________________________<br class=3D""> > > Devel mailing list<br class=3D""> > > <a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" = class=3D"">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br class=3D""> > > <a href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel" = class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</a><br = class=3D""> </p> _______________________________________________<br class=3D"">Devel = mailing list<br class=3D""><a href=3D"mailto:Devel@ovirt.org" = class=3D"">Devel@ovirt.org</a><br = class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel</div></blockquote=
</div><br class=3D""></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_058DD6D0-D8BF-486E-80A4-9F57BA3E401E--
participants (6)
-
Marina Kalinin -
Michal Skrivanek -
Nir Soffer -
Oved Ourfali -
Piotr Kliczewski -
Yaniv Bronheim