Sure John! I am referring to the point that even for one time merge, let us go through the planned QA cycle.
Thanks /sudha -----Original Message----- From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 10:14 AM To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Object_Store storage refactor Meeting Notes Sudha, The current plan is to merge once. We explored the feasibility of decomposing it into independent, testable chunks, and determined it was not possible. Thanks, -John On Jun 13, 2013, at 12:54 PM, Sudha Ponnaganti <sudha.ponnaga...@citrix.com> wrote: > Thanks John for summary. From QA stand point it would make sense to > merge once > > - assigned test cases are executed and pass rate is on par with > release criteria ( test plans published and execution results are > being posted) > - automation runs are successful and shows same pass rate as Master > - blockers are fixed before merge > > Let me know if this would be agreeable. QA usually would not test features > completely on feature branches but this one is exception given the nature of > changes. > > Thanks > /sudha > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Burwell [mailto:jburw...@basho.com] > Sent: Thursday, June 13, 2013 9:38 AM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Object_Store storage refactor Meeting Notes > > All, > > Edison Su, Min Chen, Animesh Chaturvedi, and myself met via teleconference on > 11 June 2013 @ 1:30 PM EDT. The goal of the meeting was determine the path > forward for merging the object_store branch by the 4.2 freeze date, 30 June > 2013. The conversation focused on the following topics: > > * Staging area mechanism > * Removing dependencies from the Storage to the Hypervisor layer > * Dependencies of other patches on object_store > * QA's desire to start testing the patch ASAP > > Min, Edison, and I agreed that the staging mechanism must age out files and > use a reference count to ensure that file in-use are not prematurely purged. > While we agree that some form of reservation system is required, Edison is > concerned that it will be too conservative and create bottlenecks. > > As we delved deeper into the subject of the storage to hypervisor > dependencies and the reservation mechanism, we determined that NFS storage > would still need to be the size of the secondary storage data set. Since the > hypervisor layer has not been completely fitted to the new storage layer, NFS > would be still required for a number of operations. Based on this > realization, we decided to de-scope the staging mechanism, and leave the 4.2 > object store functionality the same as 4.1. Therefore, NFS will remain the > secondary storage of record, and object storage will serve as > backup/multi-zone sync. In 4.3, we will fit the hypervisor layer for the new > storage layer which will allow object stores to server as secondary storage. > This work will include removing the storage to hypervisor dependencies. For > 4.2, Edison and Min have implemented the critical foundation necessary to > establish our next generation storage layer. There simply was not enough > time in this development cycle to make these changes and fit the hypervisor > layer. > > Due to the size of the patch, Animesh voiced QA's concerned regarding test > scope and impact. As such, we want to get the merge completed as soon as > possible to allow testing to begin. We discussed breaking up the patch, but > we could not devise a reasonable set of chunks there were both isolated and > significantly testable. Therefore, the patch can only be delivered in its > current state. We also walked through potential dependencies between the > storage framework changes and the solidfire branch. It was determined that > these two merges could occur independently. > > Finally, Animesh is going to setup a meeting at Citrix's Santa Clara office > on 26 June 2013 (the day after Collab ends) to discuss the path forward for > 4.3 and work through a high-level design/approach to fitting the hypervisor > layer to exploit the new storage capabilities. Details will be published to > the dev mailing list. > > Thanks, > -John > > On Jun 11, 2013, at 2:08 AM, Min Chen <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> It is 11th June. John is not free between 9:15am to 10am, that is why >> we schedule it at 10:30am. >> >> Thanks >> -min >> >> On 6/10/13 10:52 PM, "Nitin Mehta" <nitin.me...@citrix.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Min, >>> When you say tomorrow, what date is it 11th June or 12th ? Can the >>> time be preponed by an hour please - its too late here ? >>> >>> Thanks, >>> -Nitin >>> >>> On 11/06/13 11:06 AM, "Min Chen" <min.c...@citrix.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi there, >>>> >>>> To reach consensus on some remaining NFS cache issues on >>>> object_store storage refactor work in a more effective manner, >>>> John, Edison and I have scheduled a GoToMeeting tomorrow to discuss >>>> them over the phone, any interested parties are welcome to join and >>>> brainstorm. Here are detailed GTM information: >>>> >>>> Meeting Time: 10:30 AM 12:30 PM PST >>>> >>>> Meeting Details: >>>> >>>> 1. Please join my meeting. >>>> https://www1.gotomeeting.com/join/188620897 >>>> >>>> 2. Use your microphone and speakers (VoIP) - a headset is recommended. >>>> Or, call in using your telephone. >>>> >>>> United States: +1 (626) 521-0017 >>>> United States (toll-free): 1 877 309 2070 >>>> >>>> Access Code: 188-620-897 >>>> Audio PIN: Shown after joining the meeting >>>> >>>> Meeting ID: 188-620-897 >>>> >>>> GoToMeeting(r) >>>> Online Meetings Made Easy(r) >>>> >>>> Not at your computer? Click the link to join this meeting from your >>>> iPhone(r), iPad(r) or Android(r) device via the GoToMeeting app. >>>> >>>> Thanks >>>> -min >>> >> >
