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