On 03/16/2017 01:26 PM, Francesco Romani wrote: > On 03/16/2017 11:47 AM, Michal Skrivanek wrote: >>> On 16 Mar 2017, at 09:45, Francesco Romani <from...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>> We talked about sending storage device purely on metadata, letting Vdsm >>> rebuild them and getting the XML like today. >>> >>> In the other direction, Vdsm will pass through the XML (perhaps only >>> parts of it, e.g. the devices subtree) like before. >>> >>> This way we can minimize the changes we are uncertain of, and more >>> importantly, we can minimize the risky changes. >>> >>> >>> The following is a realistic example of how the XML could look like if >>> we send all but the storage devices. It is built using my pyxmlpickle >>> module (see [3] below). >> That’s quite verbose. How much work would it need to actually minimize it >> and turn it into something more simple. >> Most such stuff should go away and I believe it would be beneficial to make >> it difficult to use to discourage using metadata as a generic junkyard > It is verbose because it is generic - indeed perhaps too generic. > I can try something else based on a concept from Martin Polednik. Will > follow up soon.
Early preview: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/q/status:open+project:vdsm+branch:master+topic:virt-metadata-compact still plenty of TODOs, I expect to be reviewable material worst case monday morning. -- Francesco Romani Red Hat Engineering Virtualization R & D IRC: fromani _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel