[VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration. If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining. Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours. regards Carl.
I'm non-voting - but STRONGLY recommend. Aic ----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Trieloff" <cctrieloff@redhat.com> To: board@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:41:03 PM Subject: [VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
Andy, you can +1. I'll tally all the votes binding and also list unbinding. Carl. On 09/27/2011 01:47 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
I'm non-voting - but STRONGLY recommend.
Aic
----- Original Message -----
From: "Carl Trieloff" <cctrieloff@redhat.com> To: board@ovirt.org Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2011 1:41:03 PM Subject: [VOTE] Inclusion of memory overcommit manager
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
+1 -- I am excited to see MOM working together with the rest of the oVirt components! On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 01:41:03PM -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
On 9/27/11 1:41 PM, "Carl Trieloff" <cctrieloff@redhat.com> wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
+1 Jon Benedict Technical Marketing Engineer Virtualization & Cloud Blog http://captainkvm.com | Twitter @CaptainKVM NetApp 919.476.5093 Direct 919.757.7789 Mobile Jon.Benedict@netapp.com www.netapp.com
-0.9 I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone. I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality. My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM. N.B. my vote is non-binding. Regards, Anthony Liguori On 09/27/2011 12:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-0.9
I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone.
I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality.
My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM.
-1 I tend to agree here. I think adding the functionality from MOM into VDSM makes a lot of sense, but if we go through the process of adding a formal sub-project to oVirt only to have the functionality merged into VDSM, then setting up the separate infrastructure (mailing lists, maintainers, etc) seems like a lot of overhead that would need to be undone. I suppose the crux of it is: If MOM is applicable only to being integrated with VDSM, then let's do that and the MOM developers can become part of the VDSM team. If it it's useful outside of the context of VDSM, where else might it be used? Let's figure that out first before we make a decision here. So I vote -1 for the time being, but am open to further debate on this topic.
On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 02:48:42PM -0400, Perry Myers wrote:
On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-0.9
I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone.
I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality.
My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM.
-1
I tend to agree here. I think adding the functionality from MOM into VDSM makes a lot of sense, but if we go through the process of adding a formal sub-project to oVirt only to have the functionality merged into VDSM, then setting up the separate infrastructure (mailing lists, maintainers, etc) seems like a lot of overhead that would need to be undone.
I suppose the crux of it is: If MOM is applicable only to being integrated with VDSM, then let's do that and the MOM developers can become part of the VDSM team. If it it's useful outside of the context of VDSM, where else might it be used? Let's figure that out first before we make a decision here.
I have been approached with questions by several people who are using MOM in their current environments as a simple auto-ballooning/KSM daemon. I am not certain that these people are all ready to adopt oVirt tomorrow and would be content to continue using MOM as a standalone tool. On another thread I also posed the idea that MOM could be deployed infrastructure that will not be running VDSM (eg. a NFS server). At this time, it seems to make the most sense to keep the two projects separate and begin to discuss VDSM's dynamic tuning requirements.
So I vote -1 for the time being, but am open to further debate on this topic. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-0.9
I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone.
I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality.
My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM.
N.B. my vote is non-binding.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
On 09/27/2011 12:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
It sounds like the next step is for the mom and vdsm project to have a discussion and come back to the list. The discussion should clarify. a.) mom is an additional daemon that wdsm would use b.) mom is a library that vdsm would use c.) mom gets included into vdsm. Either (a or b) would mean we create another project. (c) would mean we deal with it as a code contribution to the vdsm project. Anthony, Perry, I take it your concern is we don't want to setup a project if technically we include the mom as a code submission - option (c). I had assumed a or b, your concern as I read it is to rule c in/out before completed this vote. regards Carl.
On 09/27/2011 02:04 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-0.9
I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone.
I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality.
My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM.
N.B. my vote is non-binding.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
On 09/27/2011 12:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
It sounds like the next step is for the mom and vdsm project to have a discussion and come back to the list. The discussion should clarify.
a.) mom is an additional daemon that wdsm would use b.) mom is a library that vdsm would use c.) mom gets included into vdsm.
Either (a or b) would mean we create another project. (c) would mean we deal with it as a code contribution to the vdsm project.
Anthony, Perry, I take it your concern is we don't want to setup a project if technically we include the mom as a code submission - option (c). I had assumed a or b, your concern as I read it is to rule c in/out before completed this vote.
Correct. Regards, Anthony Liguori
On 09/27/2011 03:19 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/27/2011 02:04 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
On 09/27/2011 02:34 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
-0.9
I don't think we should rush into adding projects. I think there's an open question of whether MOM should be folded into VDSM or whether it should be stand alone.
I'd like to see a roadmap for either integrating into VDSM or a clear (agreed upon) description of what components own what functionality.
My concern is that having MOM be an oVirt project would discourage attempts to merge MOM into VDSM.
N.B. my vote is non-binding.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
On 09/27/2011 12:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
It sounds like the next step is for the mom and vdsm project to have a discussion and come back to the list. The discussion should clarify.
a.) mom is an additional daemon that wdsm would use b.) mom is a library that vdsm would use c.) mom gets included into vdsm.
Either (a or b) would mean we create another project. (c) would mean we deal with it as a code contribution to the vdsm project.
Anthony, Perry, I take it your concern is we don't want to setup a project if technically we include the mom as a code submission - option (c). I had assumed a or b, your concern as I read it is to rule c in/out before completed this vote.
Here is my +1, Here is the IRC log from our IRC channel discussing the issue with Perry. (04:19:55 PM) cctrieloff: pmyers: ping (04:19:59 PM) pmyers: pong (04:20:16 PM) cctrieloff: wanted to kick around the comments on the vote a bit (04:20:57 PM) cctrieloff: Based on Adams comments, as mom is also used by other projects, then those users would need to move to vdsm if c was executed. As mom already has other users I believe it may be more pragmatic to get results using (a or b) and then we can always combine the projects if all can be served from vdsm and if that simplifies things (04:21:01 PM) cctrieloff: thoughts? (04:21:11 PM) pmyers: well (04:21:18 PM) pmyers: if it has other users outside of the oVirt use case (04:21:25 PM) pmyers: then should it be in oVirt at all? :) (04:21:32 PM) pmyers: maybe yes, but I just wanted to pose the question (04:21:32 PM) cctrieloff: why not? (04:21:53 PM) cctrieloff: if it focuses to serve oVirt then I would say yes. (04:22:02 PM) pmyers: well things like libvirt and matahari don't make sense inside of oVirt community because they have too many use cases outside of oVirt (04:22:06 PM) cctrieloff: it could just be a lib that ovirt vdsm uses (04:22:07 PM) pmyers: at least that was what we discussed (04:22:27 PM) cctrieloff: that can be debated either way (04:22:31 PM) pmyers: yep (04:22:36 PM) pmyers: and that's sort of what I'm debating here (04:22:41 PM) *djasa [/~djasa@ip-62-245-123-239.net.upcbroadband.cz/] entered the room.* (04:22:44 PM) pmyers: i'm not violently opposed to MOM being a full project (04:22:57 PM) pmyers: just wanted to raise what I saw as a possible issue (04:22:57 PM) cctrieloff: point is if someone wants to be in the community, and they add value and integrate, then I believe we should say yes (04:23:01 PM) pmyers: ok (04:23:11 PM) pmyers: so you would be open to matahari then? :) (04:23:13 PM) cctrieloff: I agree with the question (04:23:18 PM) cctrieloff: yes, I would (04:23:22 PM) pmyers: k (04:23:29 PM) cctrieloff: I think it would help matahari with visibility etc (04:23:30 PM) pmyers: we can circle back round to that question later (04:23:31 PM) pmyers: ack (04:23:38 PM) pmyers: then no objection to MOM (04:23:53 PM) pmyers: my only real concern was overhead of setting up lists and other infra (04:23:57 PM) pmyers: if in the end it would be integrated (04:24:02 PM) pmyers: if it looks like it will stay standalone (04:24:05 PM) pmyers: then those concerns are moot (04:24:06 PM) cctrieloff: ack. (04:24:41 PM) cctrieloff: personally, my guess is that it might want it's API to be integrated in vdsm and if the users come across to vdsm then they should integrate (04:24:55 PM) pmyers: yeo (04:24:59 PM) pmyers: yep that is (04:25:10 PM) cctrieloff: to me the question is does the community figure this out over time, or do we make them figure it out upfront. (04:25:19 PM) pmyers: heh (04:25:22 PM) pmyers: over time :) (04:25:30 PM) pmyers: can't make a community do anything by fiat (04:25:35 PM) cctrieloff: ack (04:25:57 PM) cctrieloff: ok, based on this interaction, I'm going to vote +1. (04:26:17 PM) cctrieloff: do you mind if I post the IRC log to the list? (04:26:36 PM) pmyers: nope, go ahead (04:26:39 PM) cctrieloff: thx
board-bounces@ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 04:29:48 AM:
(04:19:55 PM) cctrieloff: pmyers: ping (04:19:59 PM) pmyers: pong (04:20:16 PM) cctrieloff: wanted to kick around the comments on the vote
(04:20:57 PM) cctrieloff: Based on Adams comments, as mom is also used by other projects, then those users would need to move to vdsm if c was executed. As mom already has other users I believe it may be more pragmatic to get results using (a or b) and then we can always combine the projects if all can be served from vdsm and if that simplifies things (04:21:01 PM) cctrieloff: thoughts? (04:21:11 PM) pmyers: well (04:21:18 PM) pmyers: if it has other users outside of the oVirt use case (04:21:25 PM) pmyers: then should it be in oVirt at all? :) (04:21:32 PM) pmyers: maybe yes, but I just wanted to pose the question (04:21:32 PM) cctrieloff: why not? (04:21:53 PM) cctrieloff: if it focuses to serve oVirt then I would say yes. (04:22:02 PM) pmyers: well things like libvirt and matahari don't make sense inside of oVirt community because they have too many use cases outside of oVirt (04:22:06 PM) cctrieloff: it could just be a lib that ovirt vdsm uses (04:22:07 PM) pmyers: at least that was what we discussed (04:22:27 PM) cctrieloff: that can be debated either way (04:22:31 PM) pmyers: yep (04:22:36 PM) pmyers: and that's sort of what I'm debating here (04:22:41 PM) djasa [~djasa@ip-62-245-123-239.net.upcbroadband.cz] entered the room. (04:22:44 PM) pmyers: i'm not violently opposed to MOM being a full
a bit project
(04:22:57 PM) pmyers: just wanted to raise what I saw as a possible issue (04:22:57 PM) cctrieloff: point is if someone wants to be in the community, and they add value and integrate, then I believe we should say yes (04:23:01 PM) pmyers: ok (04:23:11 PM) pmyers: so you would be open to matahari then? :) (04:23:13 PM) cctrieloff: I agree with the question (04:23:18 PM) cctrieloff: yes, I would (04:23:22 PM) pmyers: k (04:23:29 PM) cctrieloff: I think it would help matahari with visibility etc (04:23:30 PM) pmyers: we can circle back round to that question later (04:23:31 PM) pmyers: ack (04:23:38 PM) pmyers: then no objection to MOM (04:23:53 PM) pmyers: my only real concern was overhead of setting up lists and other infra (04:23:57 PM) pmyers: if in the end it would be integrated (04:24:02 PM) pmyers: if it looks like it will stay standalone (04:24:05 PM) pmyers: then those concerns are moot (04:24:06 PM) cctrieloff: ack. (04:24:41 PM) cctrieloff: personally, my guess is that it might want it's API to be integrated in vdsm and if the users come across to vdsm then they should integrate (04:24:55 PM) pmyers: yeo (04:24:59 PM) pmyers: yep that is (04:25:10 PM) cctrieloff: to me the question is does the community figure this out over time, or do we make them figure it out upfront. (04:25:19 PM) pmyers: heh (04:25:22 PM) pmyers: over time :) (04:25:30 PM) pmyers: can't make a community do anything by fiat (04:25:35 PM) cctrieloff: ack (04:25:57 PM) cctrieloff: ok, based on this interaction, I'm going to vote +1. (04:26:17 PM) cctrieloff: do you mind if I post the IRC log to the list? (04:26:36 PM) pmyers: nope, go ahead (04:26:39 PM) cctrieloff: thx
I think I'd err on adding a sub-project even if later on closer examination it was found to be completely consumed.. re: Matahari.. Not sure why it shouldn't be considered part of oVirt.. at least from directions I had heard/seen, seemed there was good synergy.. It didn't seem that it was JUST about oVirt, but that doesn't matter, as long as it does provide value to the KVM managed ecosystem. That should be the main criteria... Cheers, Frank ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Frank Novak ( 诺帆 nuò、fān ) STSM, SCEM Open Hypervisor IBM Linux Technology Center -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com> [2011-09-27 12:45]:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
+1 for inclusion into oVirt.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-- Ryan Harper Software Engineer; Linux Technology Center IBM Corp., Austin, Tx ryanh@us.ibm.com
On 09/27/2011 08:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________
Can we get some info on how many people are active in this project? How committed they are? Livnat
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 07:42:58AM +0300, Livnat Peer wrote:
On 09/27/2011 08:41 PM, Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________
Can we get some info on how many people are active in this project? How committed they are?
Up until now, I am the sole maintainer and principle contributor to the project. I remain very committed to the project. Integration with a "branded" KVM stack has always been the goal for MOM because automatic integration and deployment is the key to delivering this type of optimization out of the box to end users. -- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
I think this vote is too early, I would first like to check MOM more, and see the strong/weak points of either option. My gut feeling is that MOM's code should help VDSM to cpmplete its memory menagement police (or the entire policy engine). There memory policy handling is also required as a part of the VM execution (e.g. Monday Morning efect), and as I recall MOM does not handle that. Bottom line I wouldn't rush too fast, but if I have to decide now based on what I know and the roadmap ahead I would -1 for adding it as a new ovirt project. but I would certainly start investigate how can the VDSM utilize MOM's code. Thanks Barak Azulay On Tuesday 27 September 2011 20:41:03 Carl Trieloff wrote:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
-1 Can we please not do votes until we have a process on how to evaluate new project proposals? This feels very rushed. That said, I would probably vote +1 as soon as that process is in place (and from what I know about mom so far). I just don't like to rush things. So +1 for mom, -1 for the early vote :). Alex Am 27.09.2011 um 19:41 schrieb Carl Trieloff <cctrieloff@redhat.com>:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 09/28/2011 10:46 AM, Alexander Graf wrote:
-1
Can we please not do votes until we have a process on how to evaluate new project proposals? This feels very rushed.
That said, I would probably vote +1 as soon as that process is in place (and from what I know about mom so far). I just don't like to rush things. So +1 for mom, -1 for the early vote :).
I also agree this feels a but rushed, and need a bit more looking into. i don't think anyone disagrees on the need for something like that, or even on that exact implementation, but lets understand a bit better. my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a rule based technology (say, pacemaker). could be it alrady is, could be it's not relevant, but let's understand the scope and strategy for something which will be the node level policy engine.
Alex
Am 27.09.2011 um 19:41 schrieb Carl Trieloff<cctrieloff@redhat.com>:
This vote is to accept into oVirt the memory overcommit manager (mom) project either to be used as a dependency in VDSM or as a daemon alongside VDSM. This detail will be worked during integration.
If the project is accepted and given it is our first community submitted project to be voted we will create an infrastructure setup list which I will record. This can then be used to make it easier for the next project joining.
Please vote -1, 0, +1 whether you would like to include this project into oVirt. I'll leave the vote open at least 72 hours.
regards Carl. _______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
board-bounces@ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has proposed that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be "the" policy engine for VDSM. In fact Adam pointed out that in some actual deployments MOM is used discretely from VDSM and that is a concrete advantage of having a separate daemon. Further, redesigning the project or proposing a re-implementation on a different technology base is way beyond the discussion. In fact, that latter suggestion in particular is something that the MOM project should consider. The former (inclusion into VDSM) is something the VDSM project should consider. +1 Thanks, Mike Mike Day IBM Distinguished Engineer Chief Virtualization Architect, Open Systems Development Cell: +1 919 371-8786 | mdday@us.ibm.com http://code.ncultra.org
On 09/28/2011 08:49 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
board-bounces@ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has proposed that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be "the" policy engine for VDSM.
I think the reason for the speculation is that we aren't being formal enough in our proposals. I think Fedora Features are a good model for making proposals like this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals I'll work on some ovirt wiki pages for a similar project inclusion template this afternoon. Regards, Anthony Liguori In fact Adam pointed out that in some actual
deployments MOM is used discretely from VDSM and that is a concrete advantage of having a separate daemon. Further, redesigning the project or proposing a re-implementation on a different technology base is way beyond the discussion. In fact, that latter suggestion in particular is something that the MOM project should consider. The former (inclusion into VDSM) is something the VDSM project should consider.
+1
Thanks,
Mike
Mike Day IBM Distinguished Engineer Chief Virtualization Architect, Open Systems Development Cell: +1 919 371-8786 | mdday@us.ibm.com http://code.ncultra.org
_______________________________________________ Board mailing list Board@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/board
On 09/28/2011 10:43 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
On 09/28/2011 08:49 AM, Michael D Day wrote:
board-bounces@ovirt.org wrote on 09/28/2011 05:44:56 AM:
my main concern is if this is going to be "the" policy engine for vdsm going forward, is if it shouldn't be established on something which is a rule based technology (say, pacemaker).
I think this is way too much speculation. I don't think anyone has proposed that MOM should be a general-purpose policy engine or that it should be "the" policy engine for VDSM.
I think the reason for the speculation is that we aren't being formal enough in our proposals. I think Fedora Features are a good model for making proposals like this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/Policy/Proposals
I'll work on some ovirt wiki pages for a similar project inclusion template this afternoon.
From the board meeting call, we discussed creating a bit more structure to bring in new projects. Jim has volunteered to write this up for us and circulate.
In light of this, I'm going to suspend the vote, so we can get that drafted and reviewed on the board list. Then we will work with Adam to get that info written up and we and resume. Adman, thx for the working with us, mom is the first one with the full board assembled so you are helping us get the kinks out of the process and get it written down. This should hopefully resolve the concerns raised and allow us to not create a precedent that we don't want to follow for later project submissions. sound good? Carl.
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 10:51:39AM -0400, Carl Trieloff wrote:
From the board meeting call, we discussed creating a bit more structure to bring in new projects. Jim has volunteered to write this up for us and circulate.
In light of this, I'm going to suspend the vote, so we can get that drafted and reviewed on the board list. Then we will work with Adam to get that info written up and we and resume. Adman, thx for the working with us, mom is the first one with the full board assembled so you are helping us get the kinks out of the process and get it written down.
No problem. I fully expected this to be a test/validation of the process.
This should hopefully resolve the concerns raised and allow us to not create a precedent that we don't want to follow for later project submissions.
sound good?
Yes, I agree that this is the best course to take. -- Adam Litke <agl@us.ibm.com> IBM Linux Technology Center
participants (13)
-
Adam Litke -
Alexander Graf -
Andrew Cathrow -
Anthony Liguori -
Barak Azulay -
Benedict, Jon -
Carl Trieloff -
Frank Novak -
Itamar Heim -
Livnat Peer -
Michael D Day -
Perry Myers -
Ryan Harper