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.tutkow...@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 <jburw...@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.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> > > > *™* > > > > > > > -- > *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> > *™* >
