cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] User VM HA using native XS HA capabilities
Date Tue, 26 Nov 2013 14:54:51 GMT
Hi Koushik:

Thanks for the reply - a few followup comments inline. I look forward
to seeing this work.

Other folks: please read the entire thread and the links from Koushik;
there's a planned deprecation here.

--David

On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Koushik Das <koushik.das@citrix.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the comments David. See inline.
>
> -Koushik
>
> On 22-Nov-2013, at 7:31 PM, David Nalley <david@gnsa.us> wrote:
>
>> Hi Koushik:
>>
>> In general I like the idea. A couple of comments:
>>
>> The upgrade section has a manual step for enabling HA manually per
>> instance. Why a manual step? Why is CloudStack not checking the
>> desired state (e.g. if HA is enabled in the instance service group)
>> with the actual state (what is reflected on the hypervisor) and
>> changing it when appropriate.
>>
>> We are already going to need to reconcile the state (things like host
>> the instance is running on will change for instance) with reality
>> already - so it seems like making this an automatic step wouldn't be
>> much extra effort and would scale far easier.
>
> [Koushik] Are you suggesting that as part of the upgrade process, all impacted VMs should
be automatically updated? If so, yes it can be done. For now I am keeping it manual, in future
the process can be automated.
>

Why keeping it manual now? Actually let me rephrase - I can understand
why someone might not want things changed automagically (as an admin
I'd want nothing changed by default, but changed if I cared about it
in some automated fashion) Is there a reason we would not include some
functionality to let the operator automatically change this on some
subset or all of the machines in an automated fashion?

>>
>> Are there plans on deprecating the custom HA solution, or will it be
>> supported forever? If the plan is to deprecate, lets go ahead and
>> start planning that/announcing/etc and not let it fall into disrepair.
>
> [Koushik] That's the plan going forward. For the next release both options will be there.
Maybe post that the custom HA solution can be removed for XS 6.2 and above.
>
>>

Please make sure that the deprecation is explicitly called out. E.g
will be present but deprecated in 4.4 and removed in 4.5; and let's
make sure a doc bug gets filed when this is ready for merge.

--David

Mime
View raw message