On 12/03/2012 07:22 PM, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
HSM is not a package it's an application. Currently it and the rest of VDSM 
share the same process but they use RPC to communicate. This is done so that 
one day we can actually have them run as different processes.
HSM is not something you import, it's a daemon you communicate with.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Kenigsberg" <dan...@redhat.com>
To: "Saggi Mizrahi" <smizr...@redhat.com>
Cc: "Sheldon" <shao...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, a...@linux.vnet.ibm.com, 
vdsm-devel@lists.fedorahosted.org, "Zheng Sheng
ZS Zhou" <zhshz...@cn.ibm.com>
Sent: Monday, December 3, 2012 12:01:28 PM
Subject: Re: [vdsm] [VDSM][RFC] hsm service standalone

On Mon, Dec 03, 2012 at 11:35:44AM -0500, Saggi Mizrahi wrote:
There are a bunch of precondition to having HSM pulled out.
On simple things is that someone needs to go through
storage/misc.py and utils.py and move all the code out to logical
There also needs to be a bit of a rearrangement of the code files
so they can import the reusable code properly.

I am also still very much against putting core VDSM in to

Would you elaborate on your position? Do you mind the wrong
this may give about API stability?
Contrary, It may help to split internal api and external (means rpc between vdsm to engine and rpc between vdsm and hsm), and it might be easier to understand the process flow and control the request from engine. For example, for migration you will receive vdsm request for migration, and that will initiate all the internal processes that we do during migration by sending requests to hsm service. The engine doesn't supposed to care about the internal rpc and those abilities does not supposed to be exposed via vdsm api if we don't allow those specific hsm operation from engine, but via HSM-python service that won't be available for the engine.
Might be a good division. But lots of work indeed..

vdsm-devel mailing list

Yaniv Bronhaim.
RedHat, Israel
vdsm-devel mailing list

Reply via email to