On 10/01/2014 01:23 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
On 10/01/2014 03:07 PM, Chris Friesen wrote:
Currently in nova we have the "vm_state", which according to the code
comments is supposed to represent "a VM's current stable (not
transition) state", or "what the customer expect the VM to be".

However, we then added in an ERROR state.  How does this possibly make
sense given the above definition?

Where do you see that vm_state is intended to be "what the customer
expects the VM to be"?

From nova/compute/vm_states.py:
'vm_state describes a VM's current stable (not transition) state. That is, if there is no ongoing compute API calls (running tasks), vm_state should reflect what the customer expect the VM to be.'

Also, from http://wiki.openstack.org/VMState:
'vm_state reflects the stable state based on API calls, matching user expectation, revised “top-down” within API implementation.'


Now granted, the wiki also says 'If the task fails and is not possible to rollback, the vm_state is set to ERROR.' I don't particularly like that behaviour, which is why I'd like to see a separate "actual state".

I don't think this is all that useful. I think what would be more useful
is changing the Nova API to perform actions against an instance using a
POST /servers/{server_id}/tasks call, allow a user to see a history of
what actions were taken against an instance with a call to GET
/servers/{server_id}/tasks and allow a user to see the progress of a
particular task (say, a rebuild) by calling GET /tasks/{task_id}/items.

Yep, I like that idea. But I think it's orthogonal to the issue of desired vs actual state. When you start a task it could change the "desired" state, and when the task completes the "actual" state should match the "expected state.

I proposed as much here:

http://docs.oscomputevnext.apiary.io/#servertask

Just curious, where is the equivalent of "evacuate"?

http://docs.oscomputevnext.apiary.io/#servertaskitem

This would more easily allow for recovery actions, since if the actual
state changes to ERROR (or similar) we would still have the
expected/desired state available for reference when trying to take
recovery actions.

Where would the expected/desired state be stored? Or is it implicit in the most recent task attempted for the instance in question?

I think a task-based API and internal system that uses taskflow to
organize related tasks with state machine changes is the best design to
work towards.

I think something like this would certainly be an improvement over what we have now. That said, I don't see that as mutually exclusive with an explicit distinction between desired and actual state. I think having "nova list" or the dashboard equivalent show both states would be useful.

Chris

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-dev mailing list
OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev

Reply via email to