Posted the review for this https://reviews.apache.org/r/8993/
> -----Original Message----- > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik....@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 11:15 AM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: RE: Inconsistent way to store host HV version in db > > Created CLOUDSTACK-988 > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alex Huang [mailto:alex.hu...@citrix.com] > > Sent: Wednesday, January 16, 2013 4:58 AM > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: RE: Inconsistent way to store host HV version in db > > > > Just because it's the same now doesn't mean it will always be the > > same. For example, in a rolling update, the version may be different. > > It should be stored with the host. > > > > Now hypervisor_version should be the column to store it. Anything > > inside host_details should be for various components to use and some > > components choose to store the version again that's fine. However, > > VmWare storing it in version is definitely incorrect. That's meant > > for the version of the resource file. > > > > --Alex > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik....@citrix.com] > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 1:40 AM > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > Subject: RE: Inconsistent way to store host HV version in db > > > > > > Yes it can be stored in host_details table but then given that all > > > hosts in a cluster have same version the data would get duplicated. > > > That's why storing it in cluster or cluster_details table would be > > > better, would like to know if there can be any issues with this. > > > Needed it to do some validation based on HV version. > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Devdeep Singh [mailto:devdeep.si...@citrix.com] > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:51 PM > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: RE: Inconsistent way to store host HV version in db > > > > > > > > Storing it in host_details table with the "product_version" name > > > > should be fine. For XS, that is where it is kept and it'll make > > > > sure it is consistent for > > > other > > > > hypervisors too. > > > > > > > > Just for my understanding, what is the requirement for which you > > > > now > > > need > > > > to keep the Vmware host version details? > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Devdeep > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Koushik Das [mailto:koushik....@citrix.com] > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, January 15, 2013 2:23 PM > > > > > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > > > > > Subject: Inconsistent way to store host HV version in db > > > > > > > > > > The 'host' table has a column 'hypervisor_version' but that > > > > > doesn't get filled (tried with XS and Vmware). For Vmware the > > > > > column > > 'version' > > > > > is populated with HV version whereas in case of XS it has CS > > > > > version appended with some timestamp. > > > > > There is another table 'host_details'. For XS saw that there is > > > > > a name-value pair 'product_version' but nothing like that for a > > > > > Vmware > > > host. > > > > > > > > > > Can anyone let me know what is the correct place for HV version > > > > > to be stored so that it can be accessed in a consistent way? > > > > > Also since clusters are meant to be homogeneous would it make > > > > > sense to add it in > > > > 'cluster' table? > > > > > > > > > > -Koushik
