I am OK with it either way. Edison, do you still have a preference?
Thanks! On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:14 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > Mike, > > So my dependency graph below is incorrect. If there is no dependency > between object_store and solidfire, why wouldn't merge them separately? I > ask because the object_store patch is already very large. As a reviewer > try to comprehend the changes, a series of smaller of patches is easier to > digest . > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 1:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > wrote: > > > Hey John, > > > > The SolidFire patch does not depend on the object_store branch, but - as > > Edison mentioned - it might be easier if we merge the SolidFire branch > into > > the object_store branch before object_store goes into master. > > > > I'm not sure how the disk_io_throttling fits into this merge strategy. > > Perhaps Wei can chime in on that. > > > > > > On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> > >> We have a delicate merge dance to perform. The disk_io_throttling, > >> solidfire, and object_store appear to have a number of overlapping > >> elements. I understand the dependencies between the patches to be as > >> follows: > >> > >> object_store <- solidfire -> disk_io_throttling > >> > >> Am I correct that the device management aspects of SolidFire are > additive > >> to the object_store branch or there are circular dependency between the > >> branches? Once we understand the dependency graph, we can determine the > >> best approach to land the changes in master. > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -John > >> > >> > >> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Also, if we are good with Edison merging my code into his branch before > >>> going into master, I am good with that. > >>> > >>> We can remove the StoragePoolType.Dynamic code after his merge and we > can > >>> deal with Burst IOPS then, as well. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:08 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > >>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Let me make sure I follow where we're going here: > >>>> > >>>> 1) There should be NO references to hypervisor code in the storage > >>>> plug-ins code (this includes the default storage plug-in, which > >> currently > >>>> sends several commands to the hypervisor in use (although it does not > >> know > >>>> which hypervisor (XenServer, ESX(i), etc.) is actually in use)) > >>>> > >>>> 2) managed=true or managed=false can be placed in the url field (if > not > >>>> present, we default to false). This info is stored in the > >>>> storage_pool_details table. > >>>> > >>>> 3) When the "attach" command is sent to the hypervisor in question, we > >>>> pass the managed property along (this takes the place of the > >>>> StoragePoolType.Dynamic check). > >>>> > >>>> 4) execute(AttachVolumeCommand) in the hypervisor checks for the > managed > >>>> property. If true for an attach, the necessary hypervisor data > >> structure is > >>>> created and the rest of the attach command executes to attach the > >> volume. > >>>> > >>>> 5) When execute(AttachVolumeCommand) is invoked to detach a volume, > the > >>>> same check is made. If managed, the hypervisor data structure is > >> removed. > >>>> > >>>> 6) I do not see an clear way to support Burst IOPS in 4.2 unless it is > >>>> stored in the volumes and disk_offerings table. If we have some idea, > >>>> that'd be cool. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks! > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:58 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > >>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> "+1 -- Burst IOPS can be implemented while avoiding implementation > >>>>> attributes. I always wondered about the details field. I think we > >> should > >>>>> beef up the description in the documentation regarding the expected > >> format > >>>>> of the field. In 4.1, I noticed that the details are not returned on > >> the > >>>>> createStoratePool updateStoragePool, or listStoragePool response. > Why > >>>>> don't we return it? It seems like it would be useful for clients to > be > >>>>> able to inspect the contents of the details field." > >>>>> > >>>>> Not sure how this would work storing Burst IOPS here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Burst IOPS need to be variable on a Disk Offering-by-Disk Offering > >>>>> basis. For each Disk Offering created, you have to be able to > associate > >>>>> unique Burst IOPS. There is a disk_offering_details table. Maybe it > >> could > >>>>> go there? > >>>>> > >>>>> I'm also not sure how you would accept the Burst IOPS in the GUI if > >> it's > >>>>> not stored like the Min and Max fields are in the DB. > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> *Mike Tutkowski* > >>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > >>>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > >>>> o: 303.746.7302 > >>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud< > >> http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > >>>> *™* > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> *Mike Tutkowski* > >>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > >>> e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > >>> o: 303.746.7302 > >>> Advancing the way the world uses the > >>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > >>> *™* > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > o: 303.746.7302 > > Advancing the way the world uses the > > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > > *™* > > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> *™*
