As a quick update, I've pushed my latest set of code tweaks up - https://github.com/fatmcgav/fatmcgav-netapp/commit/7a7d18bf39cdbb04a3b0b5192929ec6a857c0a5e
Need to tidy the code up a bit, but should be able to get the gist :) Have got a couple of defs which pull back the bulk of the information, and then a couple that need to be called on a volume by volume basis. All gets put together in instances, and provider'd up in prefetch. Comments welcome. Cheers Gavin On Friday, 29 March 2013 13:15:12 UTC, Gavin Williams wrote: > > Luke > > Cheers for that info, should prive useful... > > Guess I could implement a method for each property that pulls back all > that property values for all the volumes, and then match them up in > prefetch. > > Cheers > Gav > On 29 Mar 2013 12:49, "Luke Kanies" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Gavin, >> >> Yeah, there isn't as much consistency in API as I would like. >> >> The way it should work, I believe, is something like: >> >> * The Type should support an 'instances' method that returns a complete >> list of all instances of that type that exist on the host itself. This >> method should not require a catalog. >> >> * The provider should support a 'prefetch' method, which accepts a list >> of resources from the catalog and updates them with the correct provider >> instance, with appropriate data already filled in to reflect the system >> state. >> >> * Optionally, many providers implement (I think) their own 'instances' >> method, which returns all instances and doesn't require a catalog, to >> implement both of the above methods. >> >> I just looked at the Provider base class, though, and it's not at all >> clear from this. Part of the problem is that the system is smart enough to >> skip providers that don't support prefetch, and the way we denote 'doesn't >> support prefetch' is that it doesn't have the method. Given that, I left >> the method off of the base class. Because 'instances' isn't used for this >> kind of test, the base class ships with a stub method that just throws an >> error. >> >> So yeah, all that's confusing, and could really use some additional work >> to make it easier to understand, and to bring some consistency. >> >> On Mar 29, 2013, at 12:37 PM, fatmcgav <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Luke >> >> No worries. >> >> For the 2 I've converted soo far, it's made quite a performance >> difference. Thankfully can pull back all the resources with one NetApp api >> call, so it's drop the resource time from 5+ seconds to sub 1 second. >> However was a bit confused initially, as different providers seem to use >> different models... Some with just prefetch, some with just instances, some >> with both... >> >> However I'm just about to start the more complex netapp_volume provider, >> which has 4+ properties that have different api calls on top of the base >> resource list call. This is by far the slowest provider out of them with an >> average of 20+ seconds per run. >> So not sure of the best way to handle as yet. >> >> Cheers >> Gav >> On 29 Mar 2013 12:11, "Luke Kanies" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Gavin, >>> >>> I'm glad to see you've sorted it out, sorry I didn't jump in before it >>> was all resolved. >>> >>> How has prefetching worked out for you, in terms of performance? >>> >>> On Mar 28, 2013, at 3:28 PM, Gavin Williams <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Afternoon >>> >>> Managed to find my issue.. Variable name re-use :( >>> >>> Defined 'qtrees' as an empty array on line 3, and then populated it with >>> a whole load of device output on line 18 :( >>> >>> So have defined a 'qtree_instances' array on the outside to contain my >>> output, with qtrees being used on the inside to hold the NetApp filer >>> response... Latest code in >>> Github<https://github.com/fatmcgav/fatmcgav-netapp/commit/1d51b1267466176db1a3d4e6ae32d9340a06fb56> >>> . >>> >>> Cheers >>> Gavin >>> >>> On Thursday, 28 March 2013 11:44:39 UTC, Gavin Williams wrote: >>>> >>>> Morning all >>>> >>>> Quick update... Looks like I managed to hack around the issue by adding >>>> the following: >>>> >>>> ... >>>> >>>> ap qtree_info >>>> >>>> # Check if it is a NaElement >>>> >>>> next unless qtree_info.respond_to?(:child_**get_string) >>>> >>>> # Pull out the qtree name. >>>> >>>> name = qtree_info.child_get_string("**qtree") >>>> ... >>>> >>>> >>>> However this shows that I'm getting a total of 78 items processed, >>>> whereas the original array only contains 53 items... >>>> The additional items being processed are all like: '* >>>> #<Puppet::Type::Netapp_qtree::ProviderNetapp_qtree:*'. >>>> Have updated the gist with latest code and log file. >>>> >>>> Would like to understand where these are coming from, and if it's >>>> something I'm doing incorrectly? >>>> >>>> In the mean-time, following fixing that bug, the provider now seems to >>>> work as expected :) >>>> >>>> Cheers >>>> Gavin >>>> >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, 27 March 2013 17:32:23 UTC, Gavin Williams wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Afternoon all >>>>> >>>>> I've started working on converting a couple more of my NetApp network >>>>> device providers to use a prefetch/flush model, as can see performance >>>>> gains available, etc... >>>>> >>>>> Anyways, I'm having issues with my netapp_qtree provider. It would >>>>> appear that somehow, an additional *Puppet::Type...* row is getting >>>>> into an array and breaking things... >>>>> >>>>> Have created a gist here <https://gist.github.com/fatmcgav/5256240>with >>>>> the details, as the log file is quite long. >>>>> Also includes the *instances *and *prefetch* def's for my >>>>> netapp_qtree provider... >>>>> >>>>> As you can see on Line 337 of the log, the array contains 40 items, >>>>> however on line 734 *self.instances* is trying to process item 41?!?! >>>>> What's also strange is that the item contents look like a Puppet Type ( >>>>> *#<Puppet::Type::Netapp_qtree*)**, whereas all the others in the >>>>> array are NetApp specific items (*#<NaElement:*). >>>>> >>>>> So, any ideas??? >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> Gavin >>>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google >>> Groups "Puppet Developers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send >>> an email to [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | >>> +1-615-594-8199 >>> Join us at PuppetConf 2013, August 22-23 in San Francisco - >>> http://bit.ly/pupconf13 >>> >>> >>> -- >>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >>> Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. >>> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >>> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/puppet-dev/74JW491YSAk/unsubscribe?hl=en >>> . >>> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >>> [email protected]. >>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >>> >>> >>> >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Puppet Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Luke Kanies | http://about.me/lak | http://puppetlabs.com/ | >> +1-615-594-8199 >> Join us at PuppetConf 2013, August 22-23 in San Francisco - >> http://bit.ly/pupconf13 >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the >> Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. >> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit >> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/puppet-dev/74JW491YSAk/unsubscribe?hl=en >> . >> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to >> [email protected]. >> To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. >> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out. >> >> >> > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Puppet Developers" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/puppet-dev?hl=en. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
