cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
Subject Re: [MERGE] disk_io_throttling to MASTER
Date Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:02:02 GMT
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>
*™*

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message