cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com>
Subject Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 20:54:53 GMT
Mike,

Looking through the code, I am trying to understand how CreateDiskOfferingCmd would have the
context to identify the conflict.  Naively, it seems to me that this rule would need to be
enforced when a virtual machine is being deployed.  Looking through the code, it seems like
we should add a private validateStorageQoS method to com.cloud.vm.UserVmManagerImpl to check
this condition and throws a ResourceAllocationException when the QoS definitions are inconsistent.
  We would then add calls to it from each of the VM creation methods in the service.  Do this
type of approach sound reasonable?

Thanks,
-John

On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:

> Hi John,
> 
> So, here's what I was planning to do. Of course feel free to correct me on
> this approach.
> 
> I think it's OK if Wei merges his code into master and then I can draw from
> the main repo and merge master into mine locally.
> 
> 1) Once I get Wei's code and merge, I plan to add a little GUI code to make
> it user friendly (toggle between these features on the Add Disk Offering
> window).
> 
> 2) I plan to write validation logic for the create-disk-offering API
> command which throws an exception if the rules are not followed (this
> should never be triggered from the GUI since the GUI will have controls in
> place to toggle between the one feature and the other).
> 
> I'm not sure about documentation. I haven't had much experience with it on
> CloudStack projects yet.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com> wrote:
> 
>> Mike,
>> 
>> Yes, these server-side rails need to be defined and implemented before
>> either patch can be merged.  From my perspective, I would like to see the
>> rule implemented in the hypervisor as part of the validation of the virtual
>> machine definition.  We also need to make sure that this mutual exclusion
>> is documented.  Do we usually include this type of documentation with
>> patches of this nature?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> -John
>> 
>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Currently they are not yet implemented.
>>> 
>>> We have to make sure they are implemented in the GUI from a usability
>>> standpoint, but the API must check for consistency and throw an exception
>>> if necessary.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> Mike,
>>>> 
>>>> Are the checks only implemented in the UI?
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> -John
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi John,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Wei and I have discussed making the two features mutually exclusive.
We
>>>>> agree with you that only one should be active at a time. We plan to
>>>>> implement in the GUI a mechanism (maybe radio buttons) to turn his
>>>> feature
>>>>> on and mine off and vice versa.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I was thinking if I wait until he checks in his code, then I update and
>>>>> merge that I will be the person resolving merge conflicts in the
>>>> JavaScript
>>>>> code (there shouldn't be a problem in the Java code) as opposed to
>>>> putting
>>>>> that work on someone else.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Let me know what you think.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Oh, was going to ask you what "FS" stands for here.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> How have Wei and you resolved the issue of conflicting QoS mechanisms
>>>>>> between the Hypervisor and Storage layers?  Have the affected FSs
been
>>>>>> updated with that decision?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> In terms of merge timing, can you describe the dependencies between
>> the
>>>>>> patches?
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> -John
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> No problem, John.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I still want to re-review it by myself before coming up with
a new
>>>> patch
>>>>>>> file.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Also, maybe I should first wait for Wei's changes to be checked
in
>> and
>>>>>>> merge those into mine before generating a new patch file?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jburwell@basho.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I just realized that I forgot to publish my review.  I am
offline
>> ATM,
>>>>>>>> but I will publish it in the next couple of hours.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Do you plan to update your the patch in Review Board?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Sorry for the oversight,
>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Mike Tutkowski
>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Hi Edison, John, and Wei (and whoever else is reading
this :) ),
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Just an FYI that I believe I have implemented all the
areas we
>> wanted
>>>>>>>>> addressed.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> I plan to review the code again tomorrow morning or afternoon,
then
>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>> another patch.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the work on this everyone!
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, that sounds good.
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Wei ZHOU <ustcweizhou@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Mike,
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> It looks the two feature do not have many conflicts
in Java code,
>>>>>>>> except
>>>>>>>>>>> the cloudstack UI.
>>>>>>>>>>> If you do not mind, I will merge disk_io_throttling
branch into
>>>>>> master
>>>>>>>>>>> this
>>>>>>>>>>> week, so that you can develop based on it.
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> -Wei
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 2013/6/11 Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey John,
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> The SolidFire patch does not depend on the
object_store branch,
>>>> but
>>>>>> -
>>>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>> Edison mentioned - it might be easier if
we merge the SolidFire
>>>>>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>> the object_store branch before object_store
goes into master.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm not sure how the disk_io_throttling fits
into this merge
>>>>>> strategy.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Perhaps Wei can chime in on that.
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:07 AM, John Burwell
<
>>>> jburwell@basho.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mike,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> We have a delicate merge dance to perform.
 The
>>>> disk_io_throttling,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> solidfire, and object_store appear to
have a number of
>>>> overlapping
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elements.  I understand the dependencies
between the patches to
>>>> be
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>>>>>>> follows:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>    object_store <- solidfire ->
disk_io_throttling
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Am I correct that the device management
aspects of SolidFire
>> are
>>>>>>>>>>> additive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the object_store branch or there are
circular dependency
>>>> between
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> branches?  Once we understand the dependency
graph, we can
>>>>>> determine
>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> best approach to land the changes in
master.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> -John
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Jun 10, 2013, at 11:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski
<
>>>>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, if we are good with Edison
merging my code into his
>> branch
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> going into master, I am good with
that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We can remove the StoragePoolType.Dynamic
code after his merge
>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> can
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deal with Burst IOPS then, as well.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 9:08 PM,
Mike Tutkowski <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Let me make sure I follow where
we're going here:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1) There should be NO references
to hypervisor code in the
>>>>>> storage
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> plug-ins code (this includes
the default storage plug-in,
>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>> currently
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sends several commands to the
hypervisor in use (although it
>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>> know
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which hypervisor (XenServer,
ESX(i), etc.) is actually in
>> use))
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2) managed=true or managed=false
can be placed in the url
>> field
>>>>>> (if
>>>>>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> present, we default to false).
This info is stored in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> storage_pool_details table.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3) When the "attach" command
is sent to the hypervisor in
>>>>>>>>>>> question, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pass the managed property along
(this takes the place of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> StoragePoolType.Dynamic check).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4) execute(AttachVolumeCommand)
in the hypervisor checks for
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> managed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> property. If true for an attach,
the necessary hypervisor
>> data
>>>>>>>>>>>>> structure is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> created and the rest of the attach
command executes to attach
>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5) When execute(AttachVolumeCommand)
is invoked to detach a
>>>>>> volume,
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> same check is made. If managed,
the hypervisor data structure
>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> removed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6) I do not see an clear way
to support Burst IOPS in 4.2
>>>> unless
>>>>>>>>>>> it is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> stored in the volumes and disk_offerings
table. If we have
>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> idea,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that'd be cool.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:58
PM, Mike Tutkowski <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "+1 -- Burst IOPS can be
implemented while avoiding
>>>>>> implementation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> attributes.  I always wondered
about the details field.  I
>>>> think
>>>>>>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> beef up the description in
the documentation regarding the
>>>>>>>>>>> expected
>>>>>>>>>>>>> format
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the field.  In 4.1, I
noticed that the details are not
>>>>>>>>>>> returned on
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> createStoratePool updateStoragePool,
or listStoragePool
>>>>>> response.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Why
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't we return it?  It seems
like it would be useful for
>>>>>> clients
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> be
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> able to inspect the contents
of the details field."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not sure how this would work
storing Burst IOPS here.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Burst IOPS need to be variable
on a Disk Offering-by-Disk
>>>>>> Offering
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> basis. For each Disk Offering
created, you have to be able
>> to
>>>>>>>>>>>> associate
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unique Burst IOPS. There
is a disk_offering_details table.
>>>> Maybe
>>>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> could
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> go there?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm also not sure how you
would accept the Burst IOPS in the
>>>> GUI
>>>>>>>>>>> if
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not stored like the Min and
Max fields are in the DB.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer,
SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses
the cloud<
>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire
Inc.*
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses
the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>>>>>>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the cloud<
>>>>>>>> http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>>>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>>>> *™*
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> --
>>>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>>>> *™*
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --
>>> *Mike Tutkowski*
>>> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
>>> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
>>> o: 303.746.7302
>>> Advancing the way the world uses the
>>> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
>>> *™*
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> *Mike Tutkowski*
> *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.*
> e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the
> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> *™*


Mime
View raw message