Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] File-backed glance scrubber queue
On 12/02/15 09:34 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: Yeah, that commit definitely disables the file-backed queue -- it certainly *looks* like we want to be rid of it, but all of the code is left in place and even updated to support the new format. So my confusion remains. Hopefully Zhi Yan can clarify. Link added. Thanks. Hi Chris, I touched bases with Zhi Yan and my understanding is right. Since Juno, we switched to using a queue based on database instead of file and the file queue is considered redundant and on its way to be deprecated. I'll also reply on the review, Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber queue files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/ As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue is no longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this blueprint: https:// blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should have killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two things contribute to the lack of clarity: 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is unreachable. 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb (https:// review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then, *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67122/) updates the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would be updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer usable. Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed scrubber queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If not, then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my blueprint to make the queue files suck less. Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal of these changes was, and how to properly proceed. Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer. I believe the commit you're looking for is this one: f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4 There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll let Zhi Yan weight in here. Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec review? -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org? subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgp66NNP94Yfg.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] File-backed glance scrubber queue
On 13/02/15 16:22 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: That's good to know, but I'm still just the weensiest bit confused. The code is unreachable and unusable -- which is a bit more forceful than just redundant or deprecated. Can it be removed? Does Zhi Yan have plans to do that? Is there anything I can do to help? I'd say, feel free to propose a patch to remove it. Please, file a bug for this so we can track it. Thanks, Flavio Thanks! On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 12/02/15 09:34 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: Yeah, that commit definitely disables the file-backed queue -- it certainly *looks* like we want to be rid of it, but all of the code is left in place and even updated to support the new format. So my confusion remains. Hopefully Zhi Yan can clarify. Link added. Thanks. Hi Chris, I touched bases with Zhi Yan and my understanding is right. Since Juno, we switched to using a queue based on database instead of file and the file queue is considered redundant and on its way to be deprecated. I'll also reply on the review, Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber queue files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/ As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue is no longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this blueprint: https:// blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should have killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two things contribute to the lack of clarity: 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is unreachable. 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb (https:// review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then, *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/ 67122/) updates the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would be updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer usable. Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed scrubber queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If not, then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my blueprint to make the queue files suck less. Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal of these changes was, and how to properly proceed. Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer. I believe the commit you're looking for is this one: f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4 There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll let Zhi Yan weight in here. Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec review? -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org? subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org? subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe:
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] File-backed glance scrubber queue
That's good to know, but I'm still just the weensiest bit confused. The code is unreachable and unusable -- which is a bit more forceful than just redundant or deprecated. Can it be removed? Does Zhi Yan have plans to do that? Is there anything I can do to help? Thanks! On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 5:19 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 12/02/15 09:34 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: Yeah, that commit definitely disables the file-backed queue -- it certainly *looks* like we want to be rid of it, but all of the code is left in place and even updated to support the new format. So my confusion remains. Hopefully Zhi Yan can clarify. Link added. Thanks. Hi Chris, I touched bases with Zhi Yan and my understanding is right. Since Juno, we switched to using a queue based on database instead of file and the file queue is considered redundant and on its way to be deprecated. I'll also reply on the review, Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber queue files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/ As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue is no longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this blueprint: https:// blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should have killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two things contribute to the lack of clarity: 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is unreachable. 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb (https:// review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then, *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/ #/c/67122/) updates the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would be updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer usable. Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed scrubber queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If not, then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my blueprint to make the queue files suck less. Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal of these changes was, and how to properly proceed. Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer. I believe the commit you're looking for is this one: f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4 There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll let Zhi Yan weight in here. Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec review? -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org? subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] File-backed glance scrubber queue
On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber queue files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/ As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue is no longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this blueprint: https:// blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should have killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two things contribute to the lack of clarity: 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is unreachable. 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb (https:// review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then, *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67122/) updates the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would be updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer usable. Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed scrubber queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If not, then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my blueprint to make the queue files suck less. Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal of these changes was, and how to properly proceed. Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer. I believe the commit you're looking for is this one: f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4 There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll let Zhi Yan weight in here. Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec review? -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco pgpgi8R3xMssL.pgp Description: PGP signature __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
Re: [openstack-dev] [glance] File-backed glance scrubber queue
Yeah, that commit definitely disables the file-backed queue -- it certainly *looks* like we want to be rid of it, but all of the code is left in place and even updated to support the new format. So my confusion remains. Hopefully Zhi Yan can clarify. Link added. Thanks. On Thu, Feb 12, 2015 at 12:59 AM, Flavio Percoco fla...@redhat.com wrote: On 11/02/15 13:42 -0800, Chris St. Pierre wrote: I recently proposed a change to glance to turn the file-backed scrubber queue files into JSON: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/145223/ As I looked into it more, though, it turns out that the file-backed queue is no longer usable; it was killed by the implementation of this blueprint: https:// blueprints.launchpad.net/glance/+spec/image-location-status But what's not clear is if the implementation of that blueprint should have killed the file-backed scrubber queue, or if that was even intended. Two things contribute to the lack of clarity: 1. The file-backed scrubber code was left in, even though it is unreachable. 2. The ordering of the commits is strange. Namely, commit 66d24bb (https:// review.openstack.org/#/c/67115/) killed the file-backed queue, and then, *after* that change, 70e0a24 (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/67122/) updates the queue file format. So it's not clear why the queue file format would be updated if it was intended that the file-backed queue was no longer usable. Can someone clarify what was intended here? If killing the file-backed scrubber queue was deliberate, then let's finish the job and excise that code. If not, then let's make sure that code is reachable again, and I'll resurrect my blueprint to make the queue files suck less. Either way I'm happy to make the changes, I'm just not sure what the goal of these changes was, and how to properly proceed. Thanks for any clarification anyone can offer. I believe the commit you're looking for is this one: f338a5c870a36e493f8c818fa783942d1e0565a4 There the scrubber queue was switched on purpose, which leads to the conclusion that we're moving away from it. I've not participated in discussions around the change related to the scrubber queue so I'll let Zhi Yan weight in here. Thanks for bringing this up, Flavio P.S: Would you mind putting a link to this discussion on the spec review? -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject: unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- @flaper87 Flavio Percoco __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev -- Chris St. Pierre __ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
