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.tutkow...@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.tutkow...@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.tutkow...@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.tutkow...@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.tutkow...@solidfire.com
> o: 303.746.7302
> Advancing the way the world uses the
> cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play>
> *™*
