...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 2:46 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com
mailto:michal.du...@intel.com wrote
: Monday, June 29, 2015 2:46 PM
To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal
michal.du...@intel.commailto:michal.du...@intel.com wrote:
There’s also some
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com wrote:
There’s also some similar situations when we actually don’t lock on
resources. For example – a cgsnapshot may get deleted while creating a
consistencygroup from it.
From my perspective it seems best to have atomic
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Duncan Thomas duncan.tho...@gmail.com
wrote:
We need mutual exclusion for several operations. Whether that is done by
entity queues, locks, state based locking at the api later, or something
else, we need mutual exclusion.
Our current api does not lend itself
Development Mailing List
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
We need mutual exclusion for several operations. Whether that is done by entity
queues, locks, state based locking at the api later, or something else, we need
mutual exclusion.
Our current
...@gmail.com]
*Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 2:46 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com
mailto:michal.du...@intel.com
(not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com
mailto:michal.du...@intel.com
mailto:michal.du...@intel.com mailto:michal.du...@intel.com
wrote:
There’s also some similar situations
]
*Sent:* Monday, June 29, 2015 2:46 PM
*To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
*Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [cinder][oslo] Locks for create from
volume/snapshot
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2015-06-29 07:54:27 -0700:
Do we know what is so hated about the glance task API? Tasks and entity
queues give the required exclusion, if you accept that tasks can fail if
previous tasks in the queue can cause things to be pulled out from under it.
Clint Byrum wrote:
Excerpts from Duncan Thomas's message of 2015-06-29 07:54:27 -0700:
Do we know what is so hated about the glance task API? Tasks and entity
queues give the required exclusion, if you accept that tasks can fail if
previous tasks in the queue can cause things to be pulled out
On Mon, Jun 29, 2015 at 03:45:56PM +0300, Duncan Thomas wrote:
On 29 June 2015 at 15:23, Dulko, Michal michal.du...@intel.com wrote:
There’s also some similar situations when we actually don’t lock on
resources. For example – a cgsnapshot may get deleted while creating a
We need mutual exclusion for several operations. Whether that is done by
entity queues, locks, state based locking at the api later, or something
else, we need mutual exclusion.
Our current api does not lend itself to looser consistency, and I struggle
to come up with a sane api that does -
We are working on some sort of distributed replacement for the locks in
cinder, since file locks are limiting our ability to do HA. I'm afraid
you're unlikely to get any traction until that work is done.
I also have a concern that some backend do not handle load well, and so
benefit from the
Duncan Thomas wrote:
We are working on some sort of distributed replacement for the locks in
cinder, since file locks are limiting our ability to do HA. I'm afraid
you're unlikely to get any traction until that work is done.
I also have a concern that some backend do not handle load well, and
Something that I would prefer is to get the following merged:
https://github.com/python-zk/kazoo/pull/306
Then we can have tooz (http://docs.openstack.org/developer/tooz/) have a
implementation of that (using the above PR #306 for the kazoo/zookeeper
impl) and providing impls of it for the
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
wrote:
Duncan Thomas wrote:
We are working on some sort of distributed replacement for the locks in
cinder, since file locks are limiting our ability to do HA. I'm afraid
you're unlikely to get any traction until that work
John Griffith wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com
mailto:harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
Duncan Thomas wrote:
We are working on some sort of distributed replacement for the
locks in
cinder, since file locks are limiting our
Do we really need any of these locks? I'm sure we could come up with some
way to remove them, rather than make them distributed.
On Sun, Jun 28, 2015 at 5:07 AM, Joshua Harlow harlo...@outlook.com wrote:
John Griffith wrote:
On Sat, Jun 27, 2015 at 11:47 AM, Joshua Harlow
Hi folks,
Currently we use a lockfile to protect the create operations from concurrent
delete the source volume/snapshot, we use exclusive
locks on both delete and create sides which will ensure that:
1. If a create of VolA from snap/VolB is in progress, any delete requests
for
19 matches
Mail list logo
