Hi Koushik,
Thanks for your reply, but unfortunately, this setting does NOT cover
'MigrateCommand'.
As you specified, it seems to be effective only in Start/Stop/CopyCommand.
So can we include 'MigrateCommand' in that setting?
Thanks
Alex Ough
On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:44 PM, Koushik Das <koushik....@citrix.com> wrote:
> It is already a global setting in 4.2. The name of the setting is
> "execute.in.sequence.hypervisor.commands".
>
> Check out Config.java
>
> ExecuteInSequence("Advanced", ManagementServer.class, Boolean.class,
> "execute.in.sequence.hypervisor.commands", "true", "If set to true,
> StartCommand, StopCommand, CopyCommand will be synchronized on the agent
> side." +
> " If set to false, these commands become asynchronous. Default value
> is true.", null),
>
>
> -Koushik
>
> On 02-Oct-2013, at 10:43 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com<mailto:
> alex.o...@sungard.com>> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the reply, Marcus.
>
> What about the option #3, which is to make it as a global setting?
> I think it can prevent side effects if exist.
>
> Alex Ough
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 11:37 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com
> <mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>>wrote:
>
> Not sure. I don't know the history well enough to know if there were
> issues in the past, it might be that some hypervisors were fine and
> others weren't.
>
> On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 9:21 AM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com<mailto:
> alex.o...@sungard.com>> wrote:
> Marcus/Kelven,
>
> Any thoughts on my suggestions?
>
> Thanks
> Alex Ough
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com<mailto:
> alex.o...@sungard.com>>
> wrote:
>
> Oh, sorry for the confusion. I must have reversed the flags.
> As Kelven pointed, it is set as 'TRUE', which makes the process as
> sequential.
>
> So my questions are
> 1. If there is any reason why the method have been defined to return
> 'TRUE' always?
> 2. Do we expect any side effects and/or malfunctioning if we change it
> to
> returning 'FALSE'?
> 3. For a resolution without breaking possible flows, can we add the
> value
> of 'executeInSequence' to the global setting if #2 answers YES?
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 11:19 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com
> <mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I thought executeInSequence of 'true' made it go serially, or
> sequentially. In my codebase for 4.1,4.2,master it's been 'true' since
> August of 2010:
>
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 19) public class MigrateCommand extends
> Command
> {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 20) String vmName;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 21) String destIp;
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 22) String hostGuid;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 23) boolean isWindows;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 24)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 25)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 26) protected MigrateCommand() {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 27) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 28)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 29) public MigrateCommand(String vmName,
> String destIp, boolean isWindows)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 30) this.vmName = vmName;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 31) this.destIp = destIp;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 32) this.isWindows = isWindows;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 33) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 34)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 35) public boolean isWindows() {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 36) return isWindows;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 37) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 38)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 39) public String getDestinationIp() {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 40) return destIp;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 41) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 42)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 43) public String getVmName() {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 44) return vmName;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 45) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 46)
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 47) public void setHostGuid(String guid)
> {
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 48) this.hostGuid = guid;
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 49) }
> 2012-12-03 22:06:41 -0800 50)
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 51) public String getHostGuid() {
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 52) return this.hostGuid;
> 2011-08-10 10:26:04 -0700 53) }
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 54)
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 55) @Override
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 56) public boolean executeInSequence() {
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 57) return true;
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 58) }
> 2010-08-11 09:13:29 -0700 59) }
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 9:58 AM, Chip Childers
> <chip.child...@sungard.com<mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com>> wrote:
> Hey Kelven - This topic was discussed briefly in the past [1]. Are
> you
> able to provide any thoughts on Alex's ideas below?
>
> -chip
>
>
> [1] http://markmail.org/message/fznrszaswruvlmuy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 24, 2013 at 10:53:04AM -0500, Alex Ough wrote:
> For a resolution without breaking possible flows, I'd like to add
> the
> value
> of 'executeInSequence' to the global setting.
> Is there any reason not to do this?
>
> Thanks
> Alex Ough
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 12:57 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com<mailto:
> alex.o...@sungard.com>>
> wrote:
>
> All,
>
> After a little more investigation, I found that the
> 'MigrateCommand'
> defined its 'executeInSequence' method to return 'FALSE', which
> seems to
> make the vm migrations as serial even if the migration requests
> are
> dispatched to ha_worker in parallel.
> You can confirm this in line 56 of
> '/cloudstack/core/src/com/cloud/agent/api/MigrateCommand.java'
>
> So my question is if there is any reason why the method have been
> defined to return 'FALSE' always?
> And do we expect any side effects and/or malfunctioning if we
> change
> it to
> returning 'TRUE'?
>
> Any answers/comments will be very appreciated.
> Thanks
> Alex Ough
>
>
> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Alex Ough <
> alex.o...@sungard.com<mailto:alex.o...@sungard.com>>
> wrote:
>
> I checked the vm migration when their host is set to a
> maintenance
> mode
> and found that even if the orchestration layer fires the each vm
> migration
> at the same time using a ha_worker thread, the actual migration
> seems to be
> executed serially.
>
> Is this what we expect? And if so, any chance to make the actual
> migrations in parallel?
>
> Thanks
> Alex Ough
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
