On 26/01/12 21:21, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Adam Litke" <a...@us.ibm.com>
>> To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com>
>> Cc: "Livnat Peer" <lp...@redhat.com>, engine-de...@ovirt.org, 
>> vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 1:58:40 PM
>> Subject: Re: [vdsm] [Engine-devel] [RFC] New Connection Management API
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 26, 2012 at 10:00:57AM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
>>> <snip>
>>> Again trying to sum up and address all comments
>>>
>>> Clear all:
>>> ==========
>>> My opinions is still to not implement it.
>>> Even though it might generate a bit more traffic premature
>>> optimization is bad and there are other reasons we can improve
>>> VDSM command overhead without doing this.
>>>
>>> In any case this argument is redundant because my intention is (as
>>> Litke pointed out) is to have a lean API.
>>> and API call is something you have to support across versions, this
>>> call implemented in the engine is something that no one has to
>>> support and can change\evolve easily.
>>>
>>> As a rule, if an API call C and be implemented by doing A + B then
>>> C is redundant.
>>>
>>> List of connections as args:
>>> ============================
>>> Sorry I forgot to respond about that. I'm not as strongly opposed
>>> to the idea as the other things you suggested. It'll just make
>>> implementing the persistence logic in VDSM significantly more
>>> complicated as I will have to commit multiple connection
>>> information to disk in an all or nothing mode. I can create a
>>> small sqlitedb to do that or do some directory tricks and exploit
>>> FS rename atomicity but I'd rather not.
>>
>> I would be strongly opposed to introducing a sqlite database into
>> vdsm just to
>> enable "convenience mode" for this API.  Does the operation really
>> need to be
>> atomic?  Why not just perform each connection sequentially and return
>> a list of
>> statuses? Is the only motivation for allowing a list of parameters
>> to reduce
>> the number of API calls between engine and vdsm)?  If so, the same
>> argument
>> Saggi makes above applies here.
> 
> I try and have VDSM expose APIs that are simple to predict. a command can 
> either succeed or fail.
> The problem is not actually validating the connections. The problem is that 
> once I concluded that they are all OK I need to persist to disk the 
> information that will allow me to reconnect if VDSM happens to crash. If I 
> naively save them one by one I could get in a state where only some of the 
> connections persisted before the operation failed. So I have to somehow put 
> all this in a transaction.
> 
> I don't have to use sqlite. I could also put all the persistence information 
> in a new dir for every call named <UUID>.tmp. Once I wrote everything down I 
> rename the directory to just <UUID> and fsync it. This is guarantied by posix 
> to be atomic. For unmanage, I move all the persistence information from the 
> directories they sit in to a new dir named <UUID>. Rename it to a <UUDI>.tmp, 
> fsync it and then remove it.
> 
> This all just looks like more trouble then it's worth to me.
> 


I agree with Adam, I don't think the operation should be atomic, having
only some of the connections persisted is a perfectly valid outcome if
the API returns a list of statuses.


>>
>>> The demands are not without base. I would like to keep the code
>>> simple under the hood in the price of a few more calls. You would
>>> like to make less calls and keep the code simpler on your side.
>>> There isn't a real way to settle this.
>>> If anyone on the list as pros and cons for either way I'd be happy
>>> to hear them.
>>> If no compelling arguments arise I will let Ayal call this one.
>>>
>>> Transient connections:
>>> ======================
>>> The problem you are describing as I understand it is that VDSM did
>>> not respond and not that the API client did not respond.
>>> Again, this can happen for a number of reason, most of which VDSM
>>> might not be aware that there is actually a problem (network
>>> issues).
>>>
>>> This relates to the EOL policy. I agree we have to find a good way
>>> to define an automatic EOL for resources. I have made my
>>> suggestion. Out of the scope of the API.
>>>
>>> In the meantime cleaning stale connections is trivial and I have
>>> made it clear a previous email about how to go about it in a
>>> simple non intrusive way. Clean hosts on host connect, and on
>>> every poll if you find connections that you don't like. This
>>> should keep things squeaky clean.
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Livnat Peer" <lp...@redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com>
>>>> Cc: vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org, engine-de...@ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 5:22:42 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Engine-devel] [RFC] New Connection Management API
>>>>
>>>> On 25/01/12 23:35, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
>>>>> <SNIP>
>>>>> This is mail was getting way too long.
>>>>>
>>>>> About the clear all verb.
>>>>> No.
>>>>> Just loop, find the connections YOU OWN and clean them. Even
>>>>> though
>>>>> you don't want to support multiple clients to VDSM API doesn't
>>>>> mean the engine shouldn't behave like a proper citizen.
>>>>> It's the same reason why VDSM tries and not mess system
>>>>> resources
>>>>> it didn't initiate.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There is a big difference, VDSM living in hybrid mode with other
>>>> workload on the host is a valid use case, having more than one
>>>> concurrent manager for VDSM is not.
>>>> Generating a disconnect request for each connection does not seem
>>>> like
>>>> the right API to me, again think on the simple flow of moving
>>>> host
>>>> from
>>>> one data center to another, the engine needs to disconnect tall
>>>> storage
>>>> domains (each domain can have couple of connections associated
>>>> with
>>>> it).
>>>>
>>>> I am giving example from the engine use cases as it is the main
>>>> user
>>>> of
>>>> VDSM ATM but I am sure it will be relevant to any other user of
>>>> VDSM.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> As I see it the only point of conflict is the so called
>>>>> non-peristed connections.
>>>>> I will call them transient connections from now on.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are 2 user cases being discussed
>>>>> 1. Wait until a connection is made, if it fails don't retry and
>>>>> automatically unmanage.
>>>>> 2. If the called of the API forgets or fails to unmanage a
>>>>> connection.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Actually I was not discussing #2 at all.
>>>>
>>>>> Your suggestion as I understand it:
>>>>> Transient connections are:
>>>>>      - Connection that VDSM will only try to connect to once
>>>>>      and
>>>>>      will not reconnect to in case of disconnect.
>>>>
>>>> yes
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> My problem with this definition that it does not specify the
>>>>> "end
>>>>> of life" of the connection.
>>>>> Meaning it solves only use case 1.
>>>>
>>>> since this is the only use case i had in mind, it is what i was
>>>> looking for.
>>>>
>>>>> If all is well, and it usually is, VDSM will not invoke a
>>>>> disconnect.
>>>>> So the caller would have to call unmanage if the connection
>>>>> succeeded at the end of the flow.
>>>>
>>>> agree.
>>>>
>>>>> Now, if you are already calling unmanage if connection
>>>>> succeeded
>>>>> you can just call it anyway.
>>>>
>>>> not exactly, an example I gave earlier on the thread was that
>>>> VSDM
>>>> hangs
>>>> or have other error and the engine can not initiate unmanaged,
>>>> instead
>>>> let's assume the host is fenced (self-fence or external fence
>>>> does
>>>> not
>>>> matter), in this scenario the engine will not issue unmanage.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> instead of doing: (with your suggestion)
>>>>> ----------------
>>>>> manage
>>>>> wait until succeeds or lastError has value
>>>>> try:
>>>>>   do stuff
>>>>> finally:
>>>>>   unmanage
>>>>>
>>>>> do: (with the canonical flow)
>>>>> ---
>>>>> manage
>>>>> try:
>>>>>   wait until succeeds or lastError has value
>>>>>   do stuff
>>>>> finally:
>>>>>   unmanage
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simpler to do than having another connection type.
>>>>
>>>> You are assuming the engine can communicate with VDSM and there
>>>> are
>>>> scenarios where it is not feasible.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Now that we got that out of the way lets talk about the 2nd use
>>>>> case.
>>>>
>>>> Since I did not ask VDSM to clean after the (engine) user and you
>>>> don't
>>>> want to do it I am not sure we need to discuss this.
>>>>
>>>> If you insist we can start the discussion on who should implement
>>>> the
>>>> cleanup mechanism but I'm afraid I have no strong arguments for
>>>> VDSM
>>>> to
>>>> do it, so I rather not go there ;)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You dropped from the discussion my request for supporting list of
>>>> connections for manage and unmanage verbs.
>>>>
>>>>> API client died in the middle of the operation and unmanage was
>>>>> never called.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your suggested definition means that unless there was a problem
>>>>> with the connection VDSM will still have this connection
>>>>> active.
>>>>> The engine will have to clean it anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> The problem is, VDSM has no way of knowing that a client died,
>>>>> forgot or is thinking really hard and will continue on in about
>>>>> 2
>>>>> minutes.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Connections that live until they die is a hard to define and
>>>>> work
>>>>> with lifecycle. Solving this problem is theoretically simple.
>>>>>
>>>>> Have clients hold some sort of session token and force the
>>>>> client
>>>>> to update it at a specified interval. You could bind resources
>>>>> (like domains, VMs, connections) to that session token so when
>>>>> it
>>>>> expires VDSM auto cleans the resources.
>>>>>
>>>>> This kind of mechanism is out of the scope of this API change.
>>>>> Further more I think that this mechanism should sit in the
>>>>> engine
>>>>> since the session might actually contain resources from
>>>>> multiple
>>>>> hosts and resources that are not managed by VDSM.
>>>>>
>>>>> In GUI flows specifically the user might do actions that don't
>>>>> even
>>>>> touch the engine and forcing it to refresh the engine token is
>>>>> simpler then having it refresh the VDSM token.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that engine currently has no way of tracking a
>>>>> user
>>>>> session. This, as I said, is also true in the case of VDSM. We
>>>>> can
>>>>> start and argue about which project should implement the
>>>>> session
>>>>> semantics. But as I see it it's not relevant to the connection
>>>>> management API.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> vdsm-devel mailing list
>>> vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
>>> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
>>
>> --
>> Adam Litke <a...@us.ibm.com>
>> IBM Linux Technology Center
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org
https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel

Reply via email to