cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Devdeep Singh <devdeep.si...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: Review request for storage motion on xenserver
Date Fri, 05 Apr 2013 10:06:51 GMT
Hi Edison,

Thanks a lot for looking at the changes. I am going through your feedback and working on a
patch which addresses your review comments. I'll get back to you if I have any queries.

Regards,
Devdeep

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Edison Su [mailto:Edison.su@citrix.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 3:21 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: Review request for storage motion on xenserver
> 
> Sorry for the late. Following is my comments on storage motion:
> 1. We shouldn't touch volume state in virutalmachinemanager. I spend a lot of
> time trying to move volume related operations from virtualmachinemanager
> to storage subsystem, better to follow the same pattern.
> 2. The current storage subsystem apis, can only operate on one data object
> (volume/snapshot or template) at one time. In storage migration case, it has to
> deal with multiple volumes at one time.
> My suggestion is that add a new method, like,
> migrateVolumes(Map<volumeInfo, DataStore> volumeMaps), which can
> migrate a group of volumes at one time.
> 3. The code follow will look like:
> virtualmachineManagerImpl:migrateWithStorage(change vm state) ->
> volumemanager: migrateVolumes{do basic check} ->
> volumeService:migrateVolumes{which will change volume state} ->
> datamotionservice:copyAsync(which will find a data motion strategy which
> can handle storage migration for xenserver) ->
> xenserverstoragemigrationstategy:copyAsync(send commands to xenserver
> resource )
> 
> You need to write a datamotion strategy for xenserver storage migration, and
> need to add a method on both datamotionservice, volumeservice,
> volumemanager and DataMotionStrategy, so that they can operate on multiple
> volumes at one time.
> 
> 4. Don't need to add a new api called migrateasync, copyasync has the same
> meaning.
> 
> Does it make sense?
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Devdeep Singh [mailto:devdeep.singh@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Friday, March 29, 2013 8:21 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Review request for storage motion on xenserver
> >
> > I have put the feature proposed [1] and developed in the feature
> > branch [2] up for review. Code for this feature conforms to what was
> proposed in FS [3].
> > The patch available at [4]. It includes marvin tests and unit tests
> > for verifying the functionality. Please take a look at it and let me know your
> comments.
> >
> > [1] http://markmail.org/message/numdk6pdab2hekdp
> > [2] https://github.com/devdeep/cloudstack/commits/sm3
> > [3]
> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Enabling+Storag
> > e+XenMotion+for+XenServer
> > [4] https://reviews.apache.org/r/10196/
> >
> > Regards,
> > Devdeep

Mime
View raw message