Summary: smf: Lock nodes in parallel
Review request for Trac Ticket(s): #1634
Peer Reviewer(s): reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com, rafael.odza...@ericsson.com
Pull request to: <<LIST THE PERSON WITH PUSH ACCESS HERE>>
Affected branch(es): devel
Development branch: <<IF ANY GIVE THE REPO URL>>
--------------------------------
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 155aaab4571280481cb1333d3e63cc8175a5f735
Author: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:18:51 +0200
smf: Lock nodes in parallel [#1634]
A new SetAdminState class for handling admin operation on nodes, SUs and
components is created This class replaces the callAdminOperation()
method in
the SmfUpgradeStep class It operates on the list of units created for
the
step. Admin of SUs and components is handled serial as before but nodes
are
handled in parallel via node groups
Complete diffstat:
------------------
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.cc | 991
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUpgradeStep.hh | 96 +++++++-
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/SmfUtils.cc | 2 +
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_campaign_oi.cc | 2 +-
osaf/services/saf/smfsv/smfd/smfd_evt.c | 2 +-
5 files changed, 949 insertions(+), 144 deletions(-)
Testing Commands:
-----------------
For testing parallel lock, lock-in, unlock-in and unlock (nodes):
Run a single step campaign with nodes as activation/deactivation units
For testing above sequence with SUs (will be handled in series as before):
Run a single step campaign with SUs as activation/deactivation units
Suggest test of a mix of nodes and SUs. Nodes will be handled in parallel and
SUs in series:
Run a single step campaign with nodes and SUs as activation/deactivation units
For testing restart of components:
Run a single steprolling campaign with components as activation/deactivation
units
Steps:
Build an UML cluster and install the demo app
> build_uml
> env APPCONFIG=AppConfig-nwayactive.xml ./build_uml install_testprog
On node
Unlock demo app for all SUs
# amf-adm unlock-in safSu=SU1,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo2
# amf-adm unlock safSu=SU1,safSg=AmfDemo,safApp=AmfDemo2
.
.
.
Install and execute campaign
Suggest testing with smfKeepDuState on/off
Testing, Expected Results:
--------------------------
Same as if testing without patch
Lock sequence test for nodes should be faster with patch
Conditions of Submission:
-------------------------
Ack by reviewers
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What NetFlow Analyzer can do for you? Monitors network bandwidth and traffic
patterns at an interface-level. Reveals which users, apps, and protocols are
consuming the most bandwidth. Provides multi-vendor support for NetFlow,
J-Flow, sFlow and other flows. Make informed decisions using capacity planning
reports. http://sdm.link/zohomanageengine
_______________________________________________
Opensaf-devel mailing list
Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
