On Sep 2, 2014, at 13:11 , Liron Aravot <lara...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > ----- Original Message ----- >> From: "Federico Simoncelli" <fsimo...@redhat.com> >> To: de...@ovirt.org >> Cc: "Liron Aravot" <lara...@redhat.com>, users@ovirt.org, >> smizr...@redhat.com, "Michal Skrivanek" >> <mskri...@redhat.com>, "Vinzenz Feenstra" <vfeen...@redhat.com>, "Allon >> Mureinik" <amure...@redhat.com>, "Dan >> Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com> >> Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2014 12:50:28 PM >> Subject: Re: feature review - ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >>> From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com> >>> To: "Liron Aravot" <lara...@redhat.com> >>> Cc: users@ovirt.org, de...@ovirt.org, smizr...@redhat.com, >>> fsimo...@redhat.com, "Michal Skrivanek" >>> <mskri...@redhat.com>, "Vinzenz Feenstra" <vfeen...@redhat.com>, "Allon >>> Mureinik" <amure...@redhat.com> >>> Sent: Monday, September 1, 2014 11:23:45 PM >>> Subject: Re: feature review - ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName >>> >>> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 07:20:04AM -0400, Liron Aravot wrote: >>>> Feel free to review the the following feature. >>>> >>>> http://www.ovirt.org/Features/ReportGuestDisksLogicalDeviceName >>> >>> Thanks for posting this feature page. Two things worry me about this >>> feature. The first is timing. It is not reasonable to suggest an API >>> change, and expect it to get to ovirt-3.5.0. We are two late anyway. >>> >>> The other one is the suggested API. You suggest placing volatile and >>> optional infomation in getVMList. It won't be the first time that we >>> have it (guestIPs, guestFQDN, clientIP, and displayIP are there) but >>> it's foreign to the notion of "conf" reported by getVMList() - the set >>> of parameters needed to recreate the VM. > > The fact is that today we return guest information in list(Full=true), We > decide on it's notion > and it seems like we already made our minds when guest info was added there > :) . I don't see any harm in returning the disk mapping there > and if we'll want to extract the guest info out, we can extract all of it in > later version (4?) without need for BC. Having > the information spread between different verbs is no better imo. >> >> At first sight this seems something belonging to getVmStats (which >> is reporting already other guest agent information). >> > > Fede, I've mentioned in the wiki, getVmStats is called by the engine every > few seconds and therefore that info > wasn't added there but to list() which is called only when the hash is > changed. If everyone is in for that simple > solution i'm fine with that, but Michal/Vincenz preferred it that way.
yes, that was the main reason me and Vinzenz suggested to use list(). 15s is a reasonable compromise, IMHO. And since it's also reported by guest agent in a similar manner (and actually via the same vdsm<->ga API call) as other guest information I think it should sit alongside guestIPs, FQDN, etc… Maybe not the best place, but I would leave that for a bigger discussion if/when we want to refactor reporting of the guest agent information Thanks, michal > >> Federico >> > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > de...@ovirt.org > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel _______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
