Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-11 Thread Dan Kenigsberg
On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 10:04:45AM -0500, Ayal Baron wrote: > > > - Original Message - > > On 12/08/2011 12:33 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > > > > > > > > - Original Message - > > >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > > >>> On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke w

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-08 Thread Ayal Baron
- Original Message - > On 12/08/2011 12:33 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > > > > > - Original Message - > >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > >>> On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > >

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-08 Thread Dor Laor
On 12/08/2011 12:33 PM, Ayal Baron wrote: > > > - Original Message - >> On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: >>> On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke wrote: On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote:

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-08 Thread Ayal Baron
- Original Message - > On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > > On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > > >On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > > >>On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > > >>>On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Da

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-06 Thread Adam Litke
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > >On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > >>On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > >>>On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01,

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-06 Thread Dan Kenigsberg
On Tue, Dec 06, 2011 at 12:42:24PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > > > >This is one advantage, but cetainly not the only one. More importantly, as > >pointed out by Dan K. and Dan B., keeping it separate will encourage > >modularization which is greatly needed in vdsm. As part of this > >modularizat

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-06 Thread Dor Laor
On 12/05/2011 03:55 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: >> On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote: >>> On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 11/29/2011 0

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-05 Thread Adam Litke
On Sun, Dec 04, 2011 at 11:07:43PM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > >On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > >>On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > >>>On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > After discussin

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-04 Thread Dor Laor
On 12/02/2011 04:15 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: >> On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: >>> On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategi

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Litke
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > >After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies > >have > >emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: > > > >Plan A: MOM integration at the OS/Packaging level > >

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Litke
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 03:08:24AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > > On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > > > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different > > > strategies have > > > emerged. I will call them Pl

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-02 Thread Adam Litke
On Fri, Dec 02, 2011 at 02:54:17AM +0200, Dan Kenigsberg wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:21:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:11:18PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:44:23PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 201

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-01 Thread Dan Kenigsberg
On Thu, Dec 01, 2011 at 11:05:55AM +0200, Dor Laor wrote: > On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies > > have > > emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: > > > > Plan A: MOM integration at the OS/Packaging level

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-01 Thread Dan Kenigsberg
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 07:21:08PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:11:18PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:44:23PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-12-01 Thread Dor Laor
On 11/29/2011 06:29 PM, Adam Litke wrote: > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies > have > emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: > > Plan A: MOM integration at the OS/Packaging level > Plan B: MOM integration as a new VDSM thread I think a form of pla

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 01:11:18PM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:44:23PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:50:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Litke
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 05:44:23PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:50:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > > > After discussing MOM /

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 11:18:42AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:50:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different > > > strategies have > > > emerg

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Litke
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 04:50:19PM +, Daniel P. Berrange wrote: > On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies > > have > > emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: > > > > Plan A: MOM integrat

Re: RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Daniel P. Berrange
On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 10:29:41AM -0600, Adam Litke wrote: > After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies > have > emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: > > Plan A: MOM integration at the OS/Packaging level > Plan B: MOM integration as a new VDSM thread >

RFC: MOM OS-level integration

2011-11-29 Thread Adam Litke
After discussing MOM / VDSM integration at length, two different strategies have emerged. I will call them Plan A and Plan B: Plan A: MOM integration at the OS/Packaging level Plan B: MOM integration as a new VDSM thread This RFC is about Plan A. I will start another thread to discuss Plan B on