[Engine-devel] UX: Display VM Downtime in the UI

[Adam Litke]

On 18/12/13 16:04 -0500, Malini Rao wrote:
>
>----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Adam Litke" <alitke at redhat.com>
>> To: engine-devel at ovirt.org
>> Sent: Wednesday, December 18, 2013 9:42:59 AM
>> Subject: [Engine-devel] UX: Display VM Downtime in the UI
>>
>> Hi UX developers,
>>
>> My recent change: http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/22429/ adds support for
>> tracking the time a VM was last stopped and presenting it in the REST
>> API.  I would also like to expose this information in the admin
>> portal.  This feature has been requested by end users and is useful
>> for managing lots of VMs which may not be used frequently.
>>
>> My idea is to change the 'Uptime' column in the VMs tab to 'Uptime /
>> Downtime' or some equivalent and more compact phrasing.  If the VM is
>> Up, then last_start_time would be used to calculate uptime.  If the VM
>> is Down, then last_stop_time would be used to calculate downtime.
>> This helps to make efficient use of the column space.
>

Thanks for your comments!

>MR: I like the idea in general but can we extend to other states as
>well? Then we could have the col be called something like 'Time in

I would argue that 'Up' and 'Down' are the only persistent states
where a VM can linger for a user-controlled amount of time.  The
others (WaitForLaunch, PoweringDown, etc) are just transitions with
their own system defined timeouts.  Because of this, it really only
makes sense to denote uptime and downtime.  When the VM is in another
state, this column would be empty.

>current state'. Also, I think since this col is so far from the first
>column that has the status icon, we should have a tooltip on the
>value that says ' Uptime' , 'down time' or '<Status> time'.

Agree on the tooltip.

>>
>> I am not sure how column sorting is being implemented, but if we
>> combine uptime and downtime into a single column we have an
>> opportunity to provide a really intuitive sort where the longest
>> uptime machines are at the top and the longest downtime machines
>> are at the bottom.  This could be accomplished by treating uptime
>> as a positive interval and downtime as a negative interval.
>
>MR: That's an interesting idea. Not sure how that would translate if
>we did all states and times. Then I would think you would do
>descending order within each state but then we would have to fix a
>sequence for the display of the various statuses based on the
>statuses that matter most.

This is much simpler if you just work with Up and Down.

>>
>> Questions for you all:
>>
>> - Do you support the idea of changing the Uptime column to include
>> Downtime as well or would you prefer a new column instead?
>
>
>MR: I do not like the idea of introducing new columns for this
>purpose since at any given time, only one of the columns will be
>populated. Another idea is to remove this column all together and
>include the time for the current status as a tooltip on the status
>icon preceding the name.

What about adding the uptime/downtime to the status column itself?  I
don't necessarily think this will muddy the status much since there is
still an icon on the left.