> I might be confused now or confused when I did that review, because I > thought it was reducing download concurrency rather than upload > concurrency. Are you talking about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46479/ ?
My bad ... yes it was downloads and not uploads. But I was referring to concurrency/consitency issues in general, not just w.r.t. uploads. Zhi sent a link to the FSM blueprint in another mail so I'll take a look at that. If I can manage to digest that then it should (hopefully) solve our problems. -- Koo On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 05:34:47PM -0800, Mark Washenberger wrote: > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 4:37 PM, David Koo <kpublicm...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Perhaps there is still a bug where an image is getting stuck in 'saving' > > or > > > some other state when a PUT fails? > > > > Yes, that's precisely the problem. > > > > We should definitely fix that, thanks for pointing it out! > > > > > > Of course, one could argue that that if an upload fails the user > > should be able to continue trying until the upload succeeds! But in that > > case the image status should probably be reset to "queued" rather than > > stay at "saving". > > > > That's exactly my argument so I'd like to see it go back to 'queued'. > Nothing except the status has substantially changed during an upload that > fails due to either the client or the underlying store, so it is easy to > just revert the status and leave the image in a state where the user can > reattempt the upload. > > > > > > But this makes me a little uneasy because our > > consistency/concurrency handling seems a little weak at the moment (am I > > right?). If we were to have a more complicated state machine then we > > would need much stronger consistency guarantees when there are > > simultaneous uploads in progress (where some fail and some succeed)! > > > > +1 to less complicated state machines :-) > > This is part of what the current work on the import task is designed to > accomplish. When you use import, an image effectively has only two states, > 'active' and nonexistent. > > > > > > > Is there any work on this (concurrency/consistency) front? I > > remember seeing some patches related to caching of simultaneous > > downloads of an image file where issues related to concurrent update of > > image metadata were addressed but IIRC it was -1ed because it reduced > > concurrency. > > > I might be confused now or confused when I did that review, because I > thought it was reducing download concurrency rather than upload > concurrency. Are you talking about https://review.openstack.org/#/c/46479/ ? > > > > > > So do we bring back the 'killed' state or should we shoot for a more > > complicated/powerful state machine? > > > > I think we can get by with trying to simplify the state that is involved > and fixing any bugs with our state management. Is there a specific problem > you're seeing with the > > > > > > -- > > Koo > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 06:36:36AM -0800, Mark Washenberger wrote: > > > It does not seem very ReSTful--or very usable, for that matter--for a > > > resource to be permanently modified when you a PUT fails. So I don't > > think > > > we need the 'killed' status. It was purposefully left out of v2 images, > > > which is not just a reskin of v1. > > > > > > Perhaps there is still a bug where an image is getting stuck in 'saving' > > or > > > some other state when a PUT fails? > > > > > > > > > On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 5:10 AM, David Koo <kpublicm...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Fei, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the confirmation. > > > > > > > > > I think you're right. The 'killed' status should be set in method > > > > upload() > > > > > if there is an upload failure, see > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/common/utils.py#L244 > > > > > > > > I think you meant: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/openstack/glance/blob/master/glance/api/v1/upload_utils.py#L244 > > > > > > > > (the safe_kill() call) right? > > > > > > > > -- > > > > Koo > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------ Original ------------------ > > > > > From: "David Koo"<kpublicm...@gmail.com>; > > > > > Date: Jan 26, 2014 > > > > > To: "OpenStack Development Mailing > > > > > List"<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org>; > > > > > Subject: [openstack-dev] [Glance] Is the 'killed' state ever set in > > v2? > > > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > > > While trying to work on a bug I was trying to simulate some image > > > > > download failures and found that apparently the 'killed' state is > > never > > > > > set using v2 APIs. > > > > > > > > > > If I understand correctly, a file upload goes to > > > > > api.v2.image_data.ImageDataController.upload and goes all the way to > > > > > store.ImageProxy.set_data which proceeds to write to the backend > > store. > > > > > > > > > > If the backend store raises an exception it is simply propagated all > > the > > > > > way up. The notifier re-encodes the exceptions (which is the bug I > > was > > > > > looking at) but doesn't do anything about the image status. > > > > > > > > > > Nowhere does the image status seem to get set to 'killed'. > > > > > > > > > > Before I log a bug I just wanted to confirm with everybody whether or > > > > > not I've missed out on something. > > > > > > > > > > Thanks. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Koo > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > OpenStack-dev mailing list > > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev _______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev