On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 1:01 AM, Nikhil Manchanda <nik...@manchanda.me> wrote:
> > Tim Simpson writes: > > > To summarize, this is a conversation about the following LaunchPad > > bug: https://launchpad.net/bugs/1325512 > > and Gerrit review: https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97194/6 > > > > You are saying the function "_service_is_active" in addition to > > polling the datastore service status also polls the status of the Nova > > resource. At first I thought this wasn't the case, however looking at > > your pull request I was surprised to see on line 320 > > (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97194/6/trove/taskmanager/models.py) > > polls Nova using the "get" method (which I wish was called "refresh" > > as to me it sounds like a lazy-loader or something despite making a > > full GET request each time). So moving this polling out of there into > > the two respective "create_server" methods as you have done is not > > only going to be useful for Heat and avoid the issue of calling Nova > > 99 times you describe but it will actually help operations teams to > > see more clearly that the issue was with a server that didn't > > provision. We actually had an issue in Staging the other day that took > > us forever to figure out because the server wasn't provisioning, but > > before anything checked that it was ACTIVE the DNS code detected the > > server had no ip address (never mind it was in a FAILED state) so the > > logs surfaced this as a DNS error. This change should help us avoid > > such issues. > > > > Thanks for bringing this up, Tim / Denis. > > As Tim mentions, it does look like the '_service_is_active' call in > the taskmanager also polls Nova to check whether the instance is in > ERROR, causing some unnecessary, extra polling while figuring out the > state of the Trove instance. > > Given this, it does seem reasonable to split up the polling into two > separate methods, in a manner similar to what [1] is trying to > accomplish. However, [1] does seems a bit rough around the edges, and > needs a bit of cleaning up -- and I've commented on the review to this > effect. > > Of course, all comments are reasonable. Will send patchset soon. Thanks, Denis > [1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/97194 > > Hope this helps, > > Thanks, > Nikhil > > > > > [...] > > _______________________________________________ > OpenStack-dev mailing list > OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >
_______________________________________________ OpenStack-dev mailing list OpenStack-dev@lists.openstack.org http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev