On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Murugan, Visnusaran < visnusaran.muru...@hp.com> wrote:
> Steve, > > > > My reasoning to have a “--continue” like functionality was to run it as a > periodic task and substitute continuous observer for now. > > I am not in favor of the --continue as an API. I'd suggest responding to resource timeouts and if there is no response from the task, then re-start (continue) the task. -Angus > > “--continue” based command should work on realized vs. actual graph and > issue a stack update. > > > > I completely agree that user action should not be needed to realize a > partially completed stack. > > > > Your thoughts. > > > > *From:* vishnu [mailto:ckmvis...@gmail.com] > *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 10:08 AM > *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Precursor to Phase 1 Convergence > > > > Steve, > > > > Auto recovery is the plan. Engine failure should be detected by way of > heartbeat or recover partially realised stack on engine startup in case of > a single engine scenario. > > > > "--continue" command was just a additional helper api. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > *Visnusaran Murugan* > > about.me/ckmvishnu > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Steven Hardy <sha...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:53:02PM +0530, vishnu wrote: > > Hi Zane, > > I was wondering if we could push changes relating to backup stack > removal > > and to not load resources as part of stack. There needs to be a > capability > > to restart jobs left over by dead engines.A > > something like heat stack-operation --continue [git rebase --continue] > > To me, it's pointless if the user has to restart the operation, they can do > that already, e.g by triggering a stack update after a failed stack create. > > The process needs to be automatic IMO, if one engine dies, another engine > should detect that it needs to steal the lock or whatever and continue > whatever was in-progress. > > > Had a chat with shady regarding this. IMO this would be a valuable > > enhancement. Notification based lead sharing can be taken up upon > > completion. > > I was referring to a capability for the service to transparently recover > if, for example, a heat-engine is restarted during a service upgrade. > > Currently, users will be impacted in this situation, and making them > manually restart failed operations doesn't seem like a super-great solution > to me (like I said, they can already do that to some extent) > > Steve > > _______________________________________________ > 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