Hi John, So, maybe I'm wrong about this, but what I was thinking is that we'd build two radio buttons into the Add Disk Offering dialog (we can ignore Compute Offerings for 4.2 since my feature doesn't yet support them).
Let's just called these radio buttons 1) Hypervisor QoS and 2) Storage QoS for the purpose of this e-mail. By default, neither radio button is selected and no QoS fields are visible. If the user selects the Storage QoS radio button, then the Custom IOPS checkbox and the Min and Max text fields are made visible. If the user changes his mind and selects the Hypervisor QoS radio button, then the Custom IOPS checkbox and the Min and Max text fields disappear and are replaced by the two Hypervisor QoS text fields. This way, the user can choose neither QoS option or one of them or the other, but never both. On the API side, I was thinking of having logic in place when a request comes in to create a Disk Offering to confirm these fields are the way we want them. Once we know the Disk Offering is in order, a user can create a data disk from it. Since we checked the validity of the Disk Offering when it was created, the VM should never be asked to use Hypervisor QoS when Storage QoS in being utilized. Does that make sense or did I miss something? Thanks On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:54 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> wrote: > Mike, > > Looking through the code, I am trying to understand how > CreateDiskOfferingCmd would have the context to identify the conflict. > Naively, it seems to me that this rule would need to be enforced when a > virtual machine is being deployed. Looking through the code, it seems like > we should add a private validateStorageQoS method to > com.cloud.vm.UserVmManagerImpl to check this condition and throws a > ResourceAllocationException when the QoS definitions are inconsistent. We > would then add calls to it from each of the VM creation methods in the > service. Do this type of approach sound reasonable? > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jun 12, 2013, at 4:30 PM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > wrote: > > > Hi John, > > > > So, here's what I was planning to do. Of course feel free to correct me > on > > this approach. > > > > I think it's OK if Wei merges his code into master and then I can draw > from > > the main repo and merge master into mine locally. > > > > 1) Once I get Wei's code and merge, I plan to add a little GUI code to > make > > it user friendly (toggle between these features on the Add Disk Offering > > window). > > > > 2) I plan to write validation logic for the create-disk-offering API > > command which throws an exception if the rules are not followed (this > > should never be triggered from the GUI since the GUI will have controls > in > > place to toggle between the one feature and the other). > > > > I'm not sure about documentation. I haven't had much experience with it > on > > CloudStack projects yet. > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 2:21 PM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > wrote: > > > >> Mike, > >> > >> Yes, these server-side rails need to be defined and implemented before > >> either patch can be merged. From my perspective, I would like to see > the > >> rule implemented in the hypervisor as part of the validation of the > virtual > >> machine definition. We also need to make sure that this mutual > exclusion > >> is documented. Do we usually include this type of documentation with > >> patches of this nature? > >> > >> Thanks, > >> -John > >> > >> On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:18 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > >> wrote: > >> > >>> Currently they are not yet implemented. > >>> > >>> We have to make sure they are implemented in the GUI from a usability > >>> standpoint, but the API must check for consistency and throw an > exception > >>> if necessary. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 11:03 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Mike, > >>>> > >>>> Are the checks only implemented in the UI? > >>>> > >>>> Thanks, > >>>> -John > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 1:02 PM, Mike Tutkowski > >>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> Hi John, > >>>>> > >>>>> Wei and I have discussed making the two features mutually exclusive. > We > >>>>> agree with you that only one should be active at a time. We plan to > >>>>> implement in the GUI a mechanism (maybe radio buttons) to turn his > >>>> feature > >>>>> on and mine off and vice versa. > >>>>> > >>>>> I was thinking if I wait until he checks in his code, then I update > and > >>>>> merge that I will be the person resolving merge conflicts in the > >>>> JavaScript > >>>>> code (there shouldn't be a problem in the Java code) as opposed to > >>>> putting > >>>>> that work on someone else. > >>>>> > >>>>> Let me know what you think. > >>>>> > >>>>> Oh, was going to ask you what "FS" stands for here. > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks! > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:56 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> Mike, > >>>>>> > >>>>>> How have Wei and you resolved the issue of conflicting QoS > mechanisms > >>>>>> between the Hypervisor and Storage layers? Have the affected FSs > been > >>>>>> updated with that decision? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> In terms of merge timing, can you describe the dependencies between > >> the > >>>>>> patches? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Thanks, > >>>>>> -John > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 12:43 PM, Mike Tutkowski > >>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> No problem, John. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I still want to re-review it by myself before coming up with a new > >>>> patch > >>>>>>> file. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Also, maybe I should first wait for Wei's changes to be checked in > >> and > >>>>>>> merge those into mine before generating a new patch file? > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, John Burwell <jburw...@basho.com > > > >>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Mike, > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I just realized that I forgot to publish my review. I am offline > >> ATM, > >>>>>>>> but I will publish it in the next couple of hours. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Do you plan to update your the patch in Review Board? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Sorry for the oversight, > >>>>>>>> -John > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Jun 12, 2013, at 2:26 AM, Mike Tutkowski > >>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Edison, John, and Wei (and whoever else is reading this :) ), > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Just an FYI that I believe I have implemented all the areas we > >> wanted > >>>>>>>>> addressed. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> I plan to review the code again tomorrow morning or afternoon, > then > >>>>>> send > >>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>> another patch. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Thanks for all the work on this everyone! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:29 PM, Mike Tutkowski < > >>>>>>>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Sure, that sounds good. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM, Wei ZHOU < > ustcweiz...@gmail.com > >>> > >>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> 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> > >>>>>>>>>>>> *™* > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> *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> > >>>>>>> *™* > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> *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> > > *™* > > -- *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> *™*
