On 11/07/12 15:52, [email protected] wrote: > Hi - I just applied Daniel's patch from this thread (its on list now for > approval). After fixing a minor typo it solved an issue we saw in > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-257 (errors getting a > list of instances). > > I have two questions though: > > 1. Is there a way to determine the version of ON you are talking to? If > I understand correctly, this patch brings us to ON 3.6 compatibility? > This is what David Lutterkort was trying to gage - is it possible to > determine the version and if so is it worth trying to 'fall back' to ON > 3.x? Or are you happy with just requiring users to always be on latest > version? > > 2. In https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-257, the reporter > (in cc here) mentions something I also noticed about the Machine states. > You can only 'destroy' a machine when it is running. At first I thought > this was an error - looking at the defined state machine in the > opennebula driver: > > > 143 define_instance_states do$ > 144 start.to(:pending) .on( :create )$ > 145 pending.to(:running) .automatically$ > 146 stopped.to(:running) .on( :start )$ > 147 running.to(:running) .on( :reboot )$ > 148 running.to(:stopping) .on( :stop )$ > 149 stopping.to(:stopped) .automatically$ > 150 running.to(:stopping) .on( :destroy )$ > 151 stopping.to(:finish) .automatically$ > 152 end$ > > Are these states correct? Look at lines 148, 150 for example. > > After checking > http://opennebula.org/documentation:archives:rel3.0:vm_guide_2 it seems > that 'destroy only when running' is intended behaviour. Can you please > confirm that? > > Thanks again for your support, > > marios >
just to add to this issue on states... is it true that there is no longer a notion of 'restart'/'reboot' for a running machine... i.e. as described in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-257?focusedCommentId=13411504&page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel#comment-13411504 thanks, marios > > > On 10/07/12 19:55, [email protected] wrote: >> Hi Daniel, Ruben, >> >> I thought it'd be appropriate to add to this thread and revive the >> conversation; we've had a couple of bugs filed recently against the ON >> driver; I'd be really grateful if you could have a look: >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-257 >> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/DTACLOUD-258 >> >> In particular 257 as I couldn't quite get to the bottom of that one - >> but also 258 as my solution imo is just a 'band-aid' - I think these >> issues are indicative of a gap between the ON OCCI version the driver >> was written for (3.2) and the current version running @ >> http://occi.c12g.com/ (I assume this is 3.6 from you earlier comments?). >> >> As you guys are obviously the OpenNebula experts - I'd appreciate any >> thoughts and comments and also I'd ask whether you had the time to take >> a look at the current driver. There's no need for duplication of effort; >> otherwise I'll be putting it on my to-do list for the near future. >> >> As always thank you very much for your time and consideration, >> >> all the best, marios >> >> >> On 04/07/12 14:59, David Lutterkort wrote: >>> On Wed, 2012-07-04 at 11:56 +0200, Ruben S. Montero wrote: >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> Do you mean back-porting the verbose option to OpenNebula 3.2? In this >>>> line, we plan for our short roadmap to include a version API call so >>>> clients can get the version of the server and adapt themselves to it. >>>> >>>> BTW, in OpenNebula.org we only support the last stable release, and >>>> encourage people to upgrade. The next stable release (3.6) is scheduled for >>>> next week. This will make OpenNebula 3.2 two versions behind the last >>>> stable. So I think we could just update the driver to use verbose mode, and >>>> throw an exception if the call is not supported. >>> >>> I meant: what's the patch that should be committed to the Deltacloud >>> driver for OpenNebula ? >>> >>> I don't think we should just throw an exception, I'd rather the driver >>> is smart enough to fall back to the (slow) way of doing things it's >>> doing now if the ON instance doesn't support the verbose query param. >>> >>> David >>> >>> >> >> > >
