Hi Neel To handle node-groups this way (contain all handling within one operation) have some advantages: * Everything is contained within this new admin operation class. External users does not have to have any knowledge about IMM, any handles, node-groups or other inner workings of an admin operation. * Not all operations need a node-group * The list of nodes will never be the same meaning that even if we has a node-group the node list must be changed each time an admin operation shall be done on the node-group In this case the node-group with its content is actually just an in-parameter for the admin operation No need to save * No need to "cleanup" by deleting any node-group after all operations in the step is done * If creating a node-group only once, two more public methods are needed, one for creating the node-group and one for deleting it. It will also introduce unwanted dependencies; - We must know that a node-group is created before using the methods for executing an admin operation - We must know that all admin operations are done before deleting the node-group * No bad handle recovery is needed. The handles are used only within the operation and a bad handle will only fail one operation (today this will fail the campaign but in the future there may be some retry mechanism and to implement such a mechanism no changes in this class is needed).
Thanks Lennart > -----Original Message----- > From: Neelakanta Reddy [mailto:reddy.neelaka...@oracle.com] > Sent: den 28 juni 2016 13:05 > To: Lennart Lund <lennart.l...@ericsson.com>; Rafael Odzakow > <rafael.odza...@ericsson.com> > Cc: opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net > Subject: Re: [PATCH 0 of 1] Review Request for smf: Lock nodes in parallel > [#1634] > > Hi Leannart, > > Reviewed and tested the patch. > Ack. > > General comments: > > why for each admin operation a new nodegroup is created. Create one > nodegroup and use for all operations. > > /Neel. > > > > On 2016/06/17 08:38 PM, Lennart Lund wrote: > > 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. > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Attend Shape: An AT&T Tech Expo July 15-16. Meet us at AT&T Park in San Francisco, CA to explore cutting-edge tech and listen to tech luminaries present their vision of the future. This family event has something for everyone, including kids. Get more information and register today. http://sdm.link/attshape _______________________________________________ Opensaf-devel mailing list Opensaf-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/opensaf-devel
