Picking up the discussion from the Scrum meeting about where
(which plugin) certain functionalities should be.
To make sure we don't miss this aspect, I'm re-iterating on the
high level use cases.
Currently I see the following major usecases now and in the near
future (next year):
1. A user wants to perform base Linux management only.
- here he needs all the generic Host-Management
functionality + the platform specific stuff like:
Power-FW code update, Energy Management on Power or
IO-Device Management on System z
2. A user wants to manage KVM Virtual Machines.
- his primary scope are VMs. How much of the Host and
Platform specific Management functionality is required here ?
3. A user wants to manage Containers.
- his primary scope are Container. How much of the Host
and Platform specific Management functionality is required here
?
4. A user wants to manage Containers and KVM Virtual Machines
.
- his primary scope are Container and VMs. How much of the
Host and Platform specific Management functionality is required
here ?
Our current discussion now is for the usecases 2,3 and 4: How
much of the Host and Platform specific Management functionality
is required and what's the best way to organize and package it.
One possibility could be to have all Host-Management
functionality looked at being part of the default/basic
functionset and delivery and have the Platform specifc
functionality as optional plugins. The disadvantage of this
approach would be that all the following functionality:
Basic Information, System Statistics, Network (Host NICs,DNS
...), Storage/SAN (Host Storage), User Management, Configuration
Backup, Software Updates, Repositories, Debug Reports would be
present in the Container and VM usecases by default.
Do we know what a user really needs and wants in the usecases
2,3 and 4 ? I guess this depends to a large degree of the
toolset she/he is using beside Kimchi and Ginger. If there is no
other tooling available she/he may be happy about the shipped
functionset, but for sure there are other situation where she/he
may not be interested in some of the functionality.
What could be the reasons a user would want to pick selectively
?
a. functionality not required or maybe even conflicting with
some other tooling: for example Software Updates
are managed from some central instance
b. installing a reduced functionset could reduce the
external package dependencies and could reduce the amount of
updates
c. simplification on the UI by eliminating unrequired stuff
Ideally the user could choose on an individual functionality
base and configure the tool based on his needs.
I guess satisfying the reasons a. and c. from above could be
implemented via UI customisation even on an individual
Kimchi/Ginger user base.
Reason b. can be probably achieved only by segregating the set
of fuctionality in separate plugins.
On 04.08.2015 17:26, Walter Niklaus
wrote:
... Daniel sorry for the duplicate send, I missed to reply to
all so the mail didn't go to the mailing list.
On 04.08.2015 14:39, Daniel
Henrique Barboza wrote:
On 08/04/2015 04:56 AM, Walter
Niklaus wrote:
Hi Daniel,
sorry for missing the thread where this topic was
discussed.
I can fully understand the point about Basic Information
and System Statistics being relevant for Virtualization
management as well and I like the idea of potentially
making it part of the base framework because they would be
very usefull for other plugins, like Container-Management
as well.
The interesting question is then if some of the other
functions wouldn't make sense to be part of the basic
framework as well. Debug reports would be a classical
candidate from my point of view, but wouldn't some of the
other functions be usefull in the base as well ?
If we're really going in that approach (putting basic
features in WoK), I agree. We would have to
discuss each existing feature and evaluate if it belongs to
kimchi, ginger or wok.
I guess we really need to have a discussion on the individual
features but I would like to start this one from a user
requirements point of view.
Currently I see the following major usecases now and in the
near feature:
1. A user wants to perform base Linux management only.
2. A user wants to manage KVM Virtual Machines.
3. A user wants to manage Containers.
4. A user wants to manage Containers and KVM Virtual
Machines .
For the usecases 2, 3 and 4 the user needs usecase 1 as well
in order to prepare and manage the Host machine.
I'm not proposing to make the Linux Host Management part of
the base framework because we just separated out Kimchi of it,
but I think it makes a lot of sense to deliver the Host
Management plugin by default with the base framework.
Looking at the problem form a different angle: wouldn't it
make sense to package and deliver the base framework with
the Ginger plugin by default because the
Host-functionality Ginger is offering would be usefull for
the other plugins like Virtualization and Containers ?
What I missed in my previous mail is the aspect about
platform specific functionality. This functionality, like
PPC firmware update or IO-device management for Linux on z
should be made available as individual plugins.
At this moment Ginger can handle multi-arch features fairly
well. For example, Firmware
Update does not appear when running the plug-in in an Intel
computer. The feature you mentioned,
IO-device management for Linux on Z, would be available only
when running Ginger in a Linux
for Z host.
There's absolutely nothing holding you from making a brand
new plug-in for the Z features instead
of adding them to Ginger, but it is important to know that
Ginger is designed for these scenarios.
You can even create a new UI tab in Ginger, something like
'Z management' which would contain all Z related features.
This tab would only appear in a Linux on Z host. From the UI
perspective it looks
like a brand new plug-in working together with Ginger common
features in the 'Administration' tab.
Please let me know what you think about this option.
Thanks,
Walter.
On 03.08.2015 18:51, Daniel
Henrique Barboza wrote:
Hi Walter,
We've had this discussion with the community a few
months ago in the thread
"[RFC] Moving some features of Host tab to Ginger"
And we agreed to start it by moving only Software
Update, Repositories and
Debug Reports from Kimchi to Ginger.
The Basic Information and System Statistics can't be
taken away from Kimchi because there
are relevant information for the creation of VMs there,
such as Memory Available. But I agree
that these information fits nicely in Ginger too.
One alternative (just came in my head now) is to move
these "neutral" functions
to a "Basic System Info" in WoK. That way both Kimchi
and Ginger users can access
the information.
Thanks,
Daniel
On 08/03/2015 12:15 PM,
Walter Niklaus wrote:
After separating out Kimchi as an indvidual plugin
from the base
framework it would be great to have a clean separation
between Host- and
Virtualization Management functions. I'm planning to
work on this topic
in the next few weeks and have prepared a proposal of
the functionsplit.
Plugin functionality:
- Ginger:
- Basic Information
- System Statistics
- Network (Host NICs)
- Storage/SAN (Host Storage)
- User Management
- Configuration Backup
- Software Updates
- Repositories
- Debug Reports
- PPC related functions: Firmware Update
& Power Management
- Kimchi:
- Templates
- Guests
- Networks (virtual)
- Storage (Pools for VMs)
Since there are plans to restructure the UI for one of
the next
releases, I'm proposing to do only some minimal
investments in
reflecting this new finctionsplit. Therefore I'm
proposing to make the
Host tab as the one and only Tab for Ginger and move
everything from the
Administration Tab into the Host Tab. This would be
just an
intermediate solution till we implement the new UI
design. Please see
the attached PDF.
Thanks in advance for your feedback.
Walter.
_______________________________________________
Kimchi-devel mailing list
Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
_______________________________________________
Kimchi-devel mailing list
Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel
_______________________________________________
Kimchi-devel mailing list
Kimchi-devel@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/kimchi-devel