cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturv...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
Date Wed, 10 Apr 2013 16:53:40 GMT
Mice thanks for taking care of this

Animesh

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mice Xia [mailto:mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, April 10, 2013 1:57 AM
> To: Animesh Chaturvedi; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu; Hari Kannan
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
>
> Update in master:
>
> Add vm_snapshot enable/disable by hypervisor_capabilities, Add a new
> column ` vm_snapshot_enabled` in table `hypervisor_capabilities`, and
> change related VO/Dao Set vm_snapshot_enabled = 1 for
> VMware/Xenserver Check hypervisor_capabilities when createVMSnapshot
>
> UI part was not implemented for hypervisor_capabilities because I noticed
> 'maxHostPerCluster' is also added to hypervisor_capabilities and not sure if
> there are more items will be there.
>
> -Mice
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> Sent: Friday, March 22, 2013 5:09 AM
> To: Mice Xia; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu; Hari Kannan
> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
>
> That's good, thanks for your response.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mice Xia [mailto:mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, March 20, 2013 11:29 PM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Animesh Chaturvedi
> > Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu; Mice Xia
> > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> >
> > I'd like to a hypervisor_capabilities based solution.
> > The earliest time that I can start changing it is next week. I haven’t
> > investigated the solution, let's roughly suppose this could be done
> > before mid April.
> >
> > -Mice
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, March 21, 2013 12:58 AM
> > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu
> > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> >
> > Mice any updates, when can you provide a global enable/disable flag
> > for the feature?
> >
> > Animesh
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 10:44 PM
> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu
> > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > >
> > > It would be best to enable/disable this feature  on a per hypervisor
> > > basis but if that's complicated adding a top level flag to
> > > enable/disable the functionality is reasonable.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Mice Xia [mailto:mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, March 18, 2013 9:59 PM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > Cc: Chandan Purushothama; Anthony Xu; Mice Xia
> > > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > >
> > > > Animesh,
> > > >
> > > > Do you mean limit the capability by adding global configurations
> > > > or adding in [global-setting--> hypervisor capabilities] ?
> > > >
> > > > Mice
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2013 9:47 AM
> > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Mice Xia; Chandan
> > > > Purushothama; Anthony Xu
> > > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > >
> > > > Mice any comments to my email below.
> > > >
> > > > Animesh
> > > >
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: Animesh Chaturvedi [mailto:animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com]
> > > > > Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2013 6:03 PM
> > > > > To: Mice Xia; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Chandan
> > > > > Purushothama; Anthony Xu
> > > > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > >
> > > > > Mice please see concerns from Anthony on Xenserver support., I
> > > > > guess they can only be proved conclusively by testing with xenserver.
> > > > > Chandan will test with xenserver.
> > > > >
> > > > > But given that there is some doubt on full support for xenserver
> > > > > and kvm dependency on libvirt-java binding and  I assume the
> > > > > effort in making the capability configurable is trivial. In my
> > > > > opinion we should make it configurable and turn on for xenserver
> > > > > and kvm when support is
> > > > clear.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks
> > > > > Animesh
> > > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> > > > > > Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 2:49 AM
> > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > Cc: Animesh Chaturvedi
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Animesh,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > sorry for the late reply.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 1. currently in master branch it supports both xenserver and
> > > > > > vmware, for KVM it needs a new-versioned libvirt java binding,
> > > > > > considering it's for 4.2, still three months away from the
> > > > > > release date, we have big chance to ship the new libvirt
> > > > > > binding. I dont see a strong need to make it configurable for
> > > > > > hypervisors unless some functions do not work
> > > > > at all..
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2. now delta volume snapshot will become a full one. But I
> > > > > > guess volume snapshot will be improved soon for xenserver.
> > > > > > please correct me if we dont have this plan.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regards
> > > > > > -Mice
> > > > > >
> > > > > > 2013/3/8 Animesh Chaturvedi <animesh.chaturvedi@citrix.com>:
> > > > > > > Folks following up on this thread looks like support for
> > > > > > > XenServer is still not
> > > > > > settled.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1. Mice can we make the feature configurable for each
> > > > > > > hypervisor to enable/disable the feature 2. Test the feature
> > > > > > > with XenServer thoroughly to check if Volume Snapshot is
> > > > > > > affected / degraded
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks
> > > > > > > Animesh
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 5:44 PM
> > > > > > >> To: 'Mice Xia'; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org;
Alex
> > > > > > >> Huang; Mice Xia
> > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I see, snapshot manager detected the change in primary
> > > > > > >> storage, and create a full snapshot instead, which
is
> > > > > > >> supposed to be a delta
> > > > snapshot.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It doesn’t break volume snapshot function, but this
> > > > > > >> degrades the volume snapshot performance.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> This is just a simple test, it cannot prove there is
no
> > > > > > >> impact to volume snapshot.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I’m not sure what will happen if execute these two
commands
> > > > > > >> at the same time, is there any mechanism to sync/serialize
> > > > > > >> these two
> > > > > operation?
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> I’m not sure if revert VM has impact to volume snapshot.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> For now, it is better to have a global configuration
to
> > > > > > >> only choose
> > > one.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> later, we may support both of them in one setup.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Anthony
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> From: Mice Xia [mailto:mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com]
> > > > > > >> Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 5:30 PM
> > > > > > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org; Alex Huang;
Mice
> > > > > > >> Xia; Anthony Xu
> > > > > > >> Subject: 答复: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Anthony,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Thanks for your comments.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Tested on a datadisk with steps you provide on xenserver,
> > > > > > >> all the files (test1, test2, test3) are present, the
> > > > > > >> function is not
> > > affected.
> > > > > > >> But as i have replied, volume snapshot (s2) is not
a delta
> > > > > > >> snapshot, it is a full one. Users need to be aware
of this
> > > > > > >> if they want to use both snapshots simultaneously.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Regards
> > > > > > >> Mice
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:Xuefei.Xu@citrix.com]
> > > > > > >> Sent: 2013-2-2 (星期六) 4:05
> > > > > > >> To: Alex Huang; Mice Xia;
> > > > > > >> cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> CS uses XenServer delta snapshot, snapshot manager
records
> > > > > > >> a VHD chain in snapshot DB for each volume. VM snapshot
> > > > > > >> creation/revert also operate on volume snapshot, if
> > > > > > >> snapshot manager doesn't know the VM snapshot , volume
> > > > > > >> snapshot might
> > > be broken.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> You can try following test,
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> 1. create a VM.
> > > > > > >> 2. create empty file test1 inside this VM.
> > > > > > >> 3. create a volume snapshot(s1) 4. create empty file
test2
> > > > > > >> inside this VM 5. create a VM snapshot
> > > > > > >> (vm1)
> > > > > 6.
> > > > > > >> create empty file test3 inside this VM 7. create a
volume
> > > > > > >> snapshot (s2)
> > > > > 8.
> > > > > > >> create a volume from snapshot (s2) 9. attach this volume
to
> > > > > > >> a VM
> > 10.
> > > > > > >> if one of test1, test2, test3 is missing in this volume,
> > > > > > >> might mean volume snapshot is broken.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> It might be difficult to support both VM snapshot and
> > > > > > >> volume snapshot in the same time for hypervisor which
> > > > > > >> supports delta
> > > > > snapshot.
> > > > > > >> Maybe we need to provide a zone level configuration
for it,
> > > > > > >> only one is supported in a zone, volume snapshot or
vm
> snapshot.
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> Anthony
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >>
> > > > > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > From: Alex Huang
> > > > > > >> > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 10:54 AM
> > > > > > >> > To: Mice Xia; cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> > > > > > >> > Cc: Anthony Xu
> > > > > > >> > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Mice,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Thanks!
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Anthony,
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > Can you comment on whether VM Snapshot breaks
volume
> > > > > snapshot?
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > --Alex
> > > > > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > > From: Mice Xia [mailto:weiran.xia1@gmail.com]
> > > > > > >> > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 8:53 AM
> > > > > > >> > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org;
Alex Huang
> > > > > > >> > > Subject: Re: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > as Alex suggested
> > > > > > >> > > updated vm-snapshot branch, commit ebca6890fd
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > 1. remove snapshotting/revertting state from
VM state
> > > > > > >> > > machine
> > > > > > >> > > 2  prevent VM state change if there are active
vm
> > > > > > >> > > snapshot tasks
> > > > > > >> > > 3  change VMSnapshotService interface, except
for
> > > > > > >> > > ListVMSnapshotCmd, need some time to replace
it in
> > > > > > >> > > QueryService, maybe after merging to master
> > > > > > >> > > 4  remove unused methods and fix some typos
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > Regards
> > > > > > >> > > Mice
> > > > > > >> > >
> > > > > > >> > > 2013/2/1 Mice Xia <mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com>:
> > > > > > >> > > > Hi, Alex,
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Thanks for your feedbacks, please see
my comments inline.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - VM states is designed for VM lifecycle.
 Snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > > is not part of
> > > > > > >> > VM life
> > > > > > >> > > cycle so therefore the state should not be
there.  I
> > > > > > >> > > think it make
> > > > > > >> > sense to add
> > > > > > >> > > attributes to VM that says "Do Not Change
State" and
> > > > > > >> > > who changed the
> > > > > > >> > VM
> > > > > > >> > > to that state.  Then virtualmachinemanager
must obey
> > > > > > >> > > that until the
> > > > > > >> > external
> > > > > > >> > > caller changes the attribute to now you can
change state.
> > > > > > >> > > The would
> > > > > > >> > make
> > > > > > >> > > more sense and decouples snapshotting from
vm lifecycle
> > > > > > management.
> > > > > > >> > > Snapshotting then has it's own state (which
I see it
> > > > > > >> > > does
> > > already).
> > > > > > >> > If we want
> > > > > > >> > > to reflect that a vm snapshot is being taken
of a VM,
> > > > > > >> > > that's a
> > > > > > >> > function of the
> > > > > > >> > > apiresponse module that gathers up everything
about a
> > > > > > >> > > vm but it
> > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > >> > > be changed in the vm states.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > [mice] the reason that I added snapshotting/reverting
> > > > > > >> > > > state is that
> > > > > > >> > VM
> > > > > > >> > > could be in suspend/pause state during
> > > > > > >> > > snapshoting/reverting, which
> > > > > > >> > is
> > > > > > >> > > difficult to be categorized into existing
states; and
> > > > > > >> > > during the
> > > > > > >> > process, VM
> > > > > > >> > > should not be allowed to take any operations;
and by
> > > > > > >> > > adding new
> > > > > > >> > states to
> > > > > > >> > > VM, the implementation seems more 'natural'
and only
> > > > > > >> > > minimum codes
> > > > > > >> > are
> > > > > > >> > > changed to virtualmachinemanager.
> > > > > > >> > > > Of course there are some other ways
to prevent
> > > > > > >> > > > operations, such as
> > > > > > >> > check
> > > > > > >> > > if associated snapshots are in snapshotting/reverting
> > > > > > >> > > states either
> > > > > > >> > in each
> > > > > > >> > > method (start/stop/migrate/delete...) or
hook
> > > > > > >> > > stateTransitTo(), but
> > > > > > >> > in this
> > > > > > >> > > way, it does not reflect VM's real state
in hypervisor
> > > > > > >> > > and more
> > > > > > >> > existing codes
> > > > > > >> > > will be touched.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > -  Does VM Revert operation work in
the following way:
> > > > > > >> > > > Stop VM,
> > > > > > >> > restore
> > > > > > >> > > to snapshot, and run VM?  Shouldn't this
be
> > > > > > >> > > orchestration inside
> > > > > > >> > snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > manager?
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > [mice] if a running VM is reverted to
a memory
> > > > > > >> > > > enabled snapshot,
> > > > > > >> > current
> > > > > > >> > > implementation is running--> reverting-->running
> > > > > > >> > > > If a stopped VM is reverted to memory
disabled snapshot:
> > > > > > >> > > > stopped--
> > > > > > >> > > >reverting->stopped
> > > > > > >> > > > If a running VM is reverted to a memory
disabled snapshot:
> > > > > > >> > > > running-
> > > > > > >> > -(Stop
> > > > > > >> > > VM)-->stopped-->reverting--> stopped
> > > > > > >> > > > If a stopped VM is reverted to a memory
enabled
> snapshot:
> > > > > > >> > > > stopped--
> > > > > > >> > > (Start VM)-->running->reverting-->running
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > These logics are implemented in snapshot
manager.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - Does VM snapshot interfere with volume
snapshot?
> > > > > > >> > > > Volume snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > today makes the assumption that it is the
only code
> > > > > > >> > > that's making
> > > > > > >> > snapshots
> > > > > > >> > > and can break if there are additional snapshots
in between.
> > > > > > >> > > This is
> > > > > > >> > bad
> > > > > > >> > > design in volume snapshot but unfortunately
that's how
> > > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > design.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > [mice] about volume snapshot, for xensever,
if parent
> > > > > > >> > > > VHD cannot be
> > > > > > >> > > found, it will take a full volume snapshot
(this indeed
> > > > > > >> > > break current semantics but it still works)
> > > > > > >> > > > For vmware, the volume snapshot is always
a full one.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > - VMSnapshotService follows the other
services in
> > > > > > >> > > > passing the cmds
> > > > > > >> > to the
> > > > > > >> > > service.  That's really a bad practice that
we should stop.
> > > > > > >> > > Cmds are
> > > > > > >> > really
> > > > > > >> > > translations between over-the-wire api and
java interface.
> > > > > > >> > > They
> > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > >> > > have been passed to down to the java interface.
> > > > > > >> > > > [
> > > > > > >> > > > mice] I'll change it
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > A small note: Would it be better to
call it VM
> > > > > > >> > > > restore than VM
> > > > > > >> > revert?
> > > > > > >> > > Revert really should be RevertTo which I
think is in
> > > > > > >> > > the code but is
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > consistent.  Some places it's just REVERT
(for example,
> > > > > > >> > > the event is
> > > > > > >> > just
> > > > > > >> > > revert).
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > [mice] there is already RESTORE, which
is restoring a
> > > > > > >> > > > destroyed VM
> > > > > > >> > to
> > > > > > >> > > stopped. RevertTo is fine with me.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > -Mice
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:Alex.Huang@citrix.com]
> > > > > > >> > > > Sent: Friday, February 01, 2013 9:24
AM
> > > > > > >> > > > To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> > > > > > >> > > > Cc: Mice Xia
> > > > > > >> > > > Subject: RE: [MERGE] Support VM Snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Hi Mice,
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > Sorry it took so long to review this.
 Wanted to as
> > > > > > >> > > > soon as I saw
> > > > > > >> > it on the list
> > > > > > >> > > but was sick and didn't get a chance.  In
general, I
> > > > > > >> > > think the code
> > > > > > >> > is excellent.
> > > > > > >> > > I'm impressed how much Cloudstack internal
code in
> > > > > > >> > > touch and how comfortable the changes look.
 Nicely done!
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > I have a few comments:
> > > > > > >> > > > - VM states is designed for VM lifecycle.
 Snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > > is not part of
> > > > > > >> > VM life
> > > > > > >> > > cycle so therefore the state should not be
there.  I
> > > > > > >> > > think it make
> > > > > > >> > sense to add
> > > > > > >> > > attributes to VM that says "Do Not Change
State" and
> > > > > > >> > > who changed the
> > > > > > >> > VM
> > > > > > >> > > to that state.  Then virtualmachinemanager
must obey
> > > > > > >> > > that until the
> > > > > > >> > external
> > > > > > >> > > caller changes the attribute to now you can
change state.
> > > > > > >> > > The would
> > > > > > >> > make
> > > > > > >> > > more sense and decouples snapshotting from
vm lifecycle
> > > > > > management.
> > > > > > >> > > Snapshotting then has it's own state (which
I see it
> > > > > > >> > > does
> > > already).
> > > > > > >> > If we want
> > > > > > >> > > to reflect that a vm snapshot is being taken
of a VM,
> > > > > > >> > > that's a
> > > > > > >> > function of the
> > > > > > >> > > apiresponse module that gathers up everything
about a
> > > > > > >> > > vm but it
> > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > >> > > be changed in the vm states.
> > > > > > >> > > > -  Does VM Revert operation work in
the following way:
> > > > > > >> > > > Stop VM,
> > > > > > >> > restore
> > > > > > >> > > to snapshot, and run VM?  Shouldn't this
be
> > > > > > >> > > orchestration inside
> > > > > > >> > snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > manager?
> > > > > > >> > > > - Does VM snapshot interfere with volume
snapshot?
> > > > > > >> > > > Volume snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > today makes the assumption that it is the
only code
> > > > > > >> > > that's making
> > > > > > >> > snapshots
> > > > > > >> > > and can break if there are additional snapshots
in between.
> > > > > > >> > > This is
> > > > > > >> > bad
> > > > > > >> > > design in volume snapshot but unfortunately
that's how
> > > > > > >> > > it's
> > > > design.
> > > > > > >> > > > - VMSnapshotService follows the other
services in
> > > > > > >> > > > passing the cmds
> > > > > > >> > to the
> > > > > > >> > > service.  That's really a bad practice that
we should stop.
> > > > > > >> > > Cmds are
> > > > > > >> > really
> > > > > > >> > > translations between over-the-wire api and
java interface.
> > > > > > >> > > They
> > > > > > >> > shouldn't
> > > > > > >> > > have been passed to down to the java interface.
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > A small note: Would it be better to
call it VM
> > > > > > >> > > > restore than VM
> > > > > > >> > revert?
> > > > > > >> > > Revert really should be RevertTo which I
think is in
> > > > > > >> > > the code but is
> > > > > > >> > not
> > > > > > >> > > consistent.  Some places it's just REVERT
(for example,
> > > > > > >> > > the event is
> > > > > > >> > just
> > > > > > >> > > revert).
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > > --Alex
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > > > > >> > > >> From: Chiradeep Vittal
> > > > > > >> > > >> Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2013
4:44 PM
> > > > > > >> > > >> To: CloudStack DeveloperList
> > > > > > >> > > >> Cc: Alex Huang
> > > > > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: [MERGE] Support VM
Snapshot
> > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> Can we get Alex to review this?
He is the designer
> > > > > > >> > > >> of the state
> > > > > > >> > machine.
> > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> On 1/30/13 5:26 AM, "Murali Reddy"
> > > > > > >> > > >> <Murali.Reddy@citrix.com>
> > > > > > >> wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> >On 30/01/13 2:24 PM, "Mice Xia"
> > > > > > >> > > >> ><mice_xia@tcloudcomputing.com>
> > > > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>Agreed.
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>Adding VM states are likely
to have some
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>side-effects, but for moveVMToUser
case, does it
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>explicitly reject other
transient
> > > > > > >> > states
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>such as stating/stopping/migrating?
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>
> > > > > > >> > > >> >>-Mice
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >> >No, it just accepts any state
other than 'Running'
> > > > > > >> > > >> >(though it
> > > > > > >> > should
> > > > > > >> > > >> >have checked for the valid states
in which VM can
> > > > > > >> > > >> >move to other
> > > > > > >> > user).
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >> >I am just saying, there could
such VM state based
> > > > > > >> > > >> >assumptions,
> > > > > > >> > you
> > > > > > >> > > >> >might want to check.
> > > > > > >> > > >> >
> > > > > > >> > > >
> > > > > > >
Mime
View raw message