----- Original Message -----
> I agree that for messaging environment having a Message ID is a must
> because you sometimes don't have a particular target so when you get
> a response you need to know what this node is actually responding
> The message ID could be composed with <FLOWID><MSGID> so you can
> reuse the field.
> But that is all besides the point.
> I understand that someone might find it fun to go on following the
> entire flow in the Engine and in VDSM. But I would like to hear an
> actual use case where someone would have actually benefited from
> As I see it having VSDM return the task ID with every response (and
> not just for async tasks) is a lot more useful and correct.
> A generic debugging scenario as I see it.
> 1. Something went wrong
> 2. You go looking in the ENGINE log trying to figure out what
> 3. You see that ENGINE got SomeError.
> 4. Check to see if this error makes sense imagining that VDSM is
> always right and is a black box.
> 5. You did your digging and now you think that VDSM is as fault.
> 6. Go look for the call that failed. (If we returned the taskID it's
> pretty simple to find that call).
> 7. Look around the call to check VDSM state.
> 8. Profit.
> There is never a point where you want to follow a whole flow call by
> call going back and forth, and even if you did having the VDSM
> taskID is a better anchor then flowID.
> VDSM is built in a way that every call takes in to account the
> current state only. Debugging it with an engine flow mindset is just
> wrong and distracting. I see it doing more harm the good by
> reinforcing bad debugging practices.
I don't know about harm, but, today the engine logs every call and return value
to and from vdsm. This means that all the info that is needed to follow a flow
is already present in the engine log (which was not the case previously) so I
believe that the flow id is redundant.
In addition, instead of focusing on how to track a flow between components, we
should focus on how to improve the engine log so that the users don't need to
go to the hosts in the first place.
My biggest problem with it is that it changes each and every verb in the API
and makes the log itself also more verbose and less readable.
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Keith Robertson" <krobe...@redhat.com>
> > To: "VDSM Project Development" <email@example.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, February 9, 2012 1:34:43 PM
> > Subject: Re: [vdsm] flowID schema
> > On 02/09/2012 12:18 PM, Andrew Cathrow wrote:
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > >> From: "Ayal Baron"<aba...@redhat.com>
> > >> To: "Dan Kenigsberg"<dan...@redhat.com>
> > >> Cc: "VDSM Project
> > >> Development"<firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > >> Sent: Monday, February 6, 2012 10:35:54 AM
> > >> Subject: Re: [vdsm] flowID schema
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> ----- Original Message -----
> > >>> On Thu, Feb 02, 2012 at 10:32:49AM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
> > >>>> flowID makes no sense after the initial API call as stuff like
> > >>>> cacheing\threadpools\samplingtasks\resources\asyncTasks so
> > >>>> flowing
> > >>>> a flow like that will not give you the entire picture while
> > >>>> debugging.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Also adding it now will make everything even more ugly.
> > >>>> You know what, just imagine I wrote one of my long rambles
> > >>>> about
> > >>>> why I don't agree with doing this.
> > >>> I cannot imagine you write anything like that. Really. I do not
> > >>> understand why you object logging flowID on API entry point.
> > >> The question is, what problem is this really trying to solve and
> > >> is
> > >> there a simpler and less obtrusive solution to that problem?
> > > correlating logs between ovirt engine and potentially multiple
> > > vdsm
> > > nodes is a nightmare. It requires a lot skill to follow a
> > > transaction through from the front end all the way to the node,
> > > and even multiple nodes (eg actions on spm, then actions on other
> > > node to run a vm).
> > > Having a way to correlate the logs and follow a single event/flow
> > > is vital.
> > >
> > +1
> > Knowing what command caused a sequence of events in VDSM would be
> > really
> > helpful particularly in a threaded environment. Further, wouldn't
> > such
> > an ID be helpful in an asynchronous request/response model? I'm
> > not
> > sure what the plans are for AMQP or even if there are plans, but
> > I'd
> > think that something like this would be crucial for an async
> > response.
> > So, if you implemented it you might be killing 2 birds with 1
> > stone.
> > FYI: If you want to see examples of other systems that use similar
> > concepts, take a look at the correlation ID in JMS.
> > Cheers,
> > Keith
> > >>> _______________________________________________
> > >>> vdsm-devel mailing list
> > >>> email@example.com
> > >>> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> > >>>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> vdsm-devel mailing list
> > >> firstname.lastname@example.org
> > >> https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> > >>
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > vdsm-devel mailing list
> > > email@example.com
> > > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> > _______________________________________________
> > vdsm-devel mailing list
> > firstname.lastname@example.org
> > https://fedorahosted.org/mailman/listinfo/vdsm-devel
> vdsm-devel mailing list
vdsm-devel mailing list