Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com
 designates 209.85.219.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CALFpzo6vG9VetKGSm3X1J36g7ic2wea=h9Ppp1GQeJtS4k=ToQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CALFpzo4rtJyCW8G-M+2-UuWwXZV-ad4nwfDvriQB5wOC7rAZew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALFpzo46RHqv6r-2aWGjzq-J4ASzDheVSTvpcw_s1OBGZ=8X4w@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACOnxCggAkbPQLtDZiF41rEMLt7hEdVV_PS-40KA7=pzKFr_1g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CALFpzo6vG9VetKGSm3X1J36g7ic2wea=h9Ppp1GQeJtS4k=ToQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 6 Jun 2013 10:14:58 -0600
Message-ID: 
 <CACOnxCjxVzQ+NaSpTM7Hk+XJ8jBtKA5VXkq1306FBOWD4tTDVA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: deleteVolume is sync
From: Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com>
To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e0122acb4a4d5fe04de7e9d48

--089e0122acb4a4d5fe04de7e9d48
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

If it's a long-running op to delete a volume (which is can be), I would say
it should be async.


On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com> wrote=
:

> So does it just need to be async, or is deleteVolume doing too much in
> both moving the volume to destroy state and expunging? If I transition
> a volume to 'Destroy' state, the storage cleanup thread comes along
> and deletes it for me later, similar to how the VMs are expunged. This
> seems preferable, because one could potentially undelete a volume
> within the window.
>
> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:47 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> <mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com> wrote:
> > Hey Marcus,
> >
> > To me, it seems like it should be async, as well.
> >
> > As far as I know (at least in pre 4.2), unless you are deleting a volum=
e
> > that has never been attached to a VM, the CS MS would have to have the
> > hypervisor perform some operation upon the deletion of a CloudStack
> > volume...and that could take a bit of time.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:24 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Oh, I should add that I traced it through the system, and it actually
> >> sends a DeleteVolumeCommand to the agent. That has to finish before
> >> the sync call completes.
> >>
> >> This is on 4.1, if it changes significantly with the storage refactor,
> >> that's fine, but I'd like to know if there was a reason for it in case
> >> we want to make it async for us.
> >>
> >> On Wed, Jun 5, 2013 at 7:21 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > Just wondering why deleteVolume is a sync call. It doesn't seem to
> >> > adhere to the 'mark it removed, let a worker expunge it later after =
X
> >> > seconds' paradigm.  I only noticed this when a storage system was
> >> > taking a bit to do the work and thus blocking the API call.
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > *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=3Dplay>
> > *=99*
>


--=20
*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=3Dplay>
*=99*

--089e0122acb4a4d5fe04de7e9d48--