To add: There are some get API, which don't depend upon the Director and information is at Node-Director, so in that case, what should be behaviour of those API in case of Headless.
Can we have some README, which defines common guidelines for all SAF APIs. Or may be service specific also like which API is supposed to call during Headless and which not. Thanks -Nagu > -----Original Message----- > From: A V Mahesh > Sent: 29 January 2016 14:47 > To: Nhat Pham; [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [devel] [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Support > preserving and recovering checkpoint replicas during headless state V2 > [#1621] > > Hi Anders, > > On 1/29/2016 1:02 PM, Nhat Pham wrote: > > Hi Mahesh, > > > > As described in the README, the CKPT service returns > > SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN fault code in this case. > > I guess it's same for other services. > > > > @Anders: Could you please confirm this? > Please clarify on the SAF API`s behavior , that doesn't dependent on > Director > to provide the services like Initialize handle (saCkptInitialize()) ect .. > > -AVM > > > > Best regards, > > Nhat Pham > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: A V Mahesh [mailto:[email protected]] > > Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 2:11 PM > > To: Nhat Pham <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > > Cc: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Support > > preserving and recovering checkpoint replicas during headless state V2 > > [#1621] > > > > Hi, > > > > On 1/29/2016 11:45 AM, Nhat Pham wrote: > >> - The behavior of application will be consistent with other saf > >> services like imm/amf behavior during headless state. > >> [Nhat] I'm not clear what you mean about "consistent"? > > In the obscene of Director (SC's) , what is expected return values of > > SAF API should ( all services ) , > > which are not in aposition to provide service at that moment. > > > > I think all services should return same SAF ERRS., I thinks currently > > we don't have it , may be Anders Widel will help us. > > > > -AVM > > > > > > On 1/29/2016 11:45 AM, Nhat Pham wrote: > >> Hi Mahesh, > >> > >> Please see the attachment for the README. Let me know if there is any > >> more information required. > >> > >> Regarding your comments: > >> - during headless state applications may behave like during > >> CPND restart case [Nhat] Headless state and CPND restart are > >> different events. Thus, the behavior is different. > >> Headless state is a case where both SCs go down. > >> > >> - The behavior of application will be consistent with other saf > >> services like imm/amf behavior during headless state. > >> [Nhat] I'm not clear what you mean about "consistent"? > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Nhat Pham > >> > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: A V Mahesh [mailto:[email protected]] > >> Sent: Friday, January 29, 2016 11:12 AM > >> To: Nhat Pham <[email protected]>; > [email protected] > >> Cc: [email protected] > >> Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for cpsv: Support > >> preserving and recovering checkpoint replicas during headless state > >> V2 [#1621] > >> > >> Hi Nhat Pham, > >> > >> I stared reviewing this patch , so can please provide README file > >> with scope and limitations , that will help to define > >> testing/reviewing scope . > >> > >> Following are minimum things we can keep in mind while > >> reviewing/accepting patch , > >> > >> - Not effecting existing functionality > >> - during headless state applications may behave like during > >> CPND restart case > >> - The minimum functionally of application works > >> - The behavior of application will be consistent with > >> other saf services like imm/amf behavior during headless state. > >> > >> So please do provide any additional detailed in README if any of the > >> above is deviated , that allow users to know about the > >> limitations/deviation. > >> > >> -AVM > >> > >> On 1/4/2016 3:15 PM, Nhat Pham wrote: > >>> Summary: cpsv: Support preserving and recovering checkpoint replicas > >>> during headless state [#1621] Review request for Trac Ticket(s): > >>> #1621 Peer Reviewer(s): [email protected]; > >>> [email protected] Pull request to: [email protected] > >>> Affected branch(es): default Development branch: default > >>> > >>> -------------------------------- > >>> Impacted area Impact y/n > >>> -------------------------------- > >>> Docs n > >>> Build system n > >>> RPM/packaging n > >>> Configuration files n > >>> Startup scripts n > >>> SAF services y > >>> OpenSAF services n > >>> Core libraries n > >>> Samples n > >>> Tests n > >>> Other n > >>> > >>> > >>> Comments (indicate scope for each "y" above): > >>> --------------------------------------------- > >>> > >>> changeset faec4a4445a4c23e8f630857b19aabb43b5af18d > >>> Author: Nhat Pham <[email protected]> > >>> Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2016 16:34:33 +0700 > >>> > >>> cpsv: Support preserving and recovering checkpoint replicas during > >>> headless state [#1621] > >>> > >>> Background: > >>> ---------- This enhancement supports to preserve checkpoint > >>> replicas > >> in case > >>> both SCs down (headless state) and recover replicas in case one of > >> SCs up > >>> again. If both SCs goes down, checkpoint replicas on surviving > >>> nodes > >> still > >>> remain. When a SC is available again, surviving replicas are > >> automatically > >>> registered to the SC checkpoint database. Content in surviving > >> replicas are > >>> intacted and synchronized to new replicas. > >>> > >>> When no SC is available, client API calls changing checkpoint > >> configuration > >>> which requires SC communication, are rejected. Client API calls > >> reading and > >>> writing existing checkpoint replicas still work. > >>> > >>> Limitation: The CKPT service does not support recovering > >>> checkpoints > >> in > >>> following cases: > >>> - The checkpoint which is unlinked before headless. > >>> - The non-collocated checkpoint has active replica locating on SC. > >>> - The non-collocated checkpoint has active replica locating on a > >>> PL > >> and this > >>> PL restarts during headless state. In this cases, the checkpoint > >> replica is > >>> destroyed. The fault code SA_AIS_ERR_BAD_HANDLE is returned > when > >>> the > >> client > >>> accesses the checkpoint in these cases. The client must re-open the > >>> checkpoint. > >>> > >>> While in headless state, accessing checkpoint replicas does not > >>> work > >> if the > >>> node which hosts the active replica goes down. It will back working > >> when a > >>> SC available again. > >>> > >>> Solution: > >>> --------- The solution for this enhancement includes 2 parts: > >>> > >>> 1. To destroy un-recoverable checkpoint described above when both > >> SCs are > >>> down: When both SCs are down, the CPND deletes un-recoverable > >> checkpoint > >>> nodes and replicas on PLs. Then it requests CPA to destroy > >> corresponding > >>> checkpoint node by using new message > CPA_EVT_ND2A_CKPT_DESTROY > >>> > >>> 2. To update CPD with checkpoint information When an active SC is > >>> up > >> after > >>> headless, CPND will update CPD with checkpoint information by > using > >> new > >>> message CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_INFO_UPDATE instead of using > >>> CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_CREATE. This is because the CPND will create > new > >> ckpt_id > >>> for the checkpoint which might be different with the current ckpt > >>> id > >> if the > >>> CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_CREATE is used. The CPD collects checkpoint > >> information > >>> within 6s. During this updating time, following requests is > >>> rejected > >> with > >>> fault code SA_AIS_ERR_TRY_AGAIN: > >>> - CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_CREATE > >>> - CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_UNLINK > >>> - CPD_EVT_ND2D_ACTIVE_SET > >>> - CPD_EVT_ND2D_CKPT_RDSET > >>> > >>> > >>> Complete diffstat: > >>> ------------------ > >>> osaf/libs/agents/saf/cpa/cpa_proc.c | 52 > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/cpsv_edu.c | 43 > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpd_cb.h | 3 ++ > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpd_imm.h | 1 + > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpd_proc.h | 7 ++++ > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpd_tmr.h | 3 +- > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpnd_cb.h | 1 + > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpnd_init.h | 2 + > >>> osaf/libs/common/cpsv/include/cpsv_evt.h | 20 +++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/Makefile.am | 3 +- > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_evt.c | 229 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> ++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_imm.c | 112 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_init.c | 20 ++++++++++++- > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_proc.c | 309 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpd/cpd_tmr.c | 7 ++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_db.c | 16 ++++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_evt.c | 22 +++++++++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_init.c | 23 ++++++++++++++- > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_mds.c | 13 ++++++++ > >>> osaf/services/saf/cpsv/cpnd/cpnd_proc.c | 314 > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > ++++++++++++++ > >> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- > -- > >>> 20 files changed, 1189 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> > >>> Testing Commands: > >>> ----------------- > >>> - > >>> > >>> Testing, Expected Results: > >>> -------------------------- > >>> - > >>> > >>> > >>> Conditions of Submission: > >>> ------------------------- > >>> <<HOW MANY DAYS BEFORE PUSHING, CONSENSUS ETC>> > >>> > >>> > >>> Arch Built Started Linux distro > >>> ------------------------------------------- > >>> mips n n > >>> mips64 n n > >>> x86 n n > >>> x86_64 n n > >>> powerpc n n > >>> powerpc64 n n > >>> > >>> > >>> Reviewer Checklist: > >>> ------------------- > >>> [Submitters: make sure that your review doesn't trigger any > >>> checkmarks!] > >>> > >>> > >>> Your checkin has not passed review because (see checked entries): > >>> > >>> ___ Your RR template is generally incomplete; it has too many blank > >> entries > >>> that need proper data filled in. > >>> > >>> ___ You have failed to nominate the proper persons for review and push. > >>> > >>> ___ Your patches do not have proper short+long header > >>> > >>> ___ You have grammar/spelling in your header that is unacceptable. > >>> > >>> ___ You have exceeded a sensible line length in your > >> headers/comments/text. > >>> ___ You have failed to put in a proper Trac Ticket # into your commits. > >>> > >>> ___ You have incorrectly put/left internal data in your comments/files > >>> (i.e. internal bug tracking tool IDs, product names etc) > >>> > >>> ___ You have not given any evidence of testing beyond basic build tests. > >>> Demonstrate some level of runtime or other sanity testing. > >>> > >>> ___ You have ^M present in some of your files. These have to be > removed. > >>> > >>> ___ You have needlessly changed whitespace or added whitespace > crimes > >>> like trailing spaces, or spaces before tabs. > >>> > >>> ___ You have mixed real technical changes with whitespace and other > >>> cosmetic code cleanup changes. These have to be separate commits. > >>> > >>> ___ You need to refactor your submission into logical chunks; there is > >>> too much content into a single commit. > >>> > >>> ___ You have extraneous garbage in your review (merge commits etc) > >>> > >>> ___ You have giant attachments which should never have been sent; > >>> Instead you should place your content in a public tree to be > >>> pulled. > >>> > >>> ___ You have too many commits attached to an e-mail; resend as > threaded > >>> commits, or place in a public tree for a pull. > >>> > >>> ___ You have resent this content multiple times without a clear > indication > >>> of what has changed between each re-send. > >>> > >>> ___ You have failed to adequately and individually address all of the > >>> comments and change requests that were proposed in the > >>> initial > >> review. > >>> ___ You have a misconfigured ~/.hgrc file (i.e. username, email etc) > >>> > >>> ___ Your computer have a badly configured date and time; confusing the > >>> the threaded patch review. > >>> > >>> ___ Your changes affect IPC mechanism, and you don't present any > results > >>> for in-service upgradability test. > >>> > >>> ___ Your changes affect user manual and documentation, your patch > series > >>> do not contain the patch that updates the Doxygen manual. > >>> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + > Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor > end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot > faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! > http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 > _______________________________________________ > Opensaf-devel mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Site24x7 APM Insight: Get Deep Visibility into Application Performance APM + Mobile APM + RUM: Monitor 3 App instances at just $35/Month Monitor end-to-end web transactions and take corrective actions now Troubleshoot faster and improve end-user experience. Signup Now! http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=267308311&iu=/4140 _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
