Oleg, Thanks for the feedback. I have the following as a response:
1. This spec is just an excerpt for scoping in the proposed improvement to the 7.0 release plan. If it get’s scope the full specification will go through a standard review process so it will be possible to discuss names along with the rest of details then. 2. It’s already noticed in the spec the status is is generated using an aggregate query like you described so I don’t propose to store it. Storing that data will require sophisticated algorithms to work with it and also will lead to more locks or race conditions in the database. So yes, it’s going to be a method. - romcheg > 27 трав. 2015 о 08:19 Oleg Gelbukh <ogelb...@mirantis.com> написав(ла): > > Roman, > > This looks like a great solution to me, and I like your proposal very much. > The status of cluster derived directly from statuses of nodes is exactly what > I was thinking about. > > I have to notes to the proposal, and I can copy them to etherpad if you think > they deserve it: > > 1) status name 'operational' seem a bit unclear to me, as it sounds more like > something Monitoring should report: it implies that the actual OpenStack > environment is operational, which might or might not be a case, and Fuel has > no way to tell. I would really prefer if that status name was 'Deployed' or > something along those lines. > > 2) I'm not sure if we need to keep the complex status of the cluster > explicitly in 'cluster' table in the format you suggest. This information can > be taken directly from 'nodes' table in Nailgun DB. For example, getting it > in the second form you propose is as simple as: > > nailgun=> SELECT status,count(status) FROM nodes GROUP BY status; > discover|1 > ready|5 > > What do you think about making it a method rather then an element of data > model? Or that's exactly the complexity you want to get rid of? > > -- > Best regards, > Oleg Gelbukh > > > On Tue, May 26, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko <m...@romcheg.me > <mailto:m...@romcheg.me>> wrote: > Oleg, > > Aleksander also proposed a nice proposed a nice solution [1] which is to have > a complex status for cluster. That, however, looks like a BP so I’ve created > an excerpt [2] for it and we will try to discuss it scope it for 7.0, if > there is a consensus. > > > References: > > 1. http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html > <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/2015-May/064670.html> > 2. https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status > <https://etherpad.openstack.org/p/fuel-cluster-complex-status> > > > - romcheg > >> 22 трав. 2015 о 22:32 Oleg Gelbukh <ogelb...@mirantis.com >> <mailto:ogelb...@mirantis.com>> написав(ла): >> >> Roman, >> >> I'm totally for fixing Nailgun. However, the status of environment is not >> simply function of statuses of nodes in it. Ideally, it should depend on >> whether appropriate number of nodes of certain roles are in 'ready' status. >> For the meantime, it would be enough if environment was set to 'operational' >> when all nodes in it become 'ready', no matter how they were deployed (i.e. >> via Web UI or CLI). >> >> -- >> Best regards, >> Oleg Gelbukh >> >> On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 5:33 PM, Roman Prykhodchenko <m...@romcheg.me >> <mailto:m...@romcheg.me>> wrote: >> Hi folks! >> >> Recently I encountered an issue [1] that the Deploy Changes button in the >> web ui is still active when a provisioning of single node is started using >> the command line client. >> The background for that issue is that the provisioning task does not seem to >> update the cluster status correctly and Nailgun’s API returns it as NEW even >> while some of the node are been provisioned. >> >> The reason for raising this thread in the mailing list is that provisioning >> a node is a feature for developers and basically end-users should not do >> that. What is the best solution for that: fix Nailgun to set the correct >> status, or make this provisioning feature available only for developers? >> >> 1. https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086 >> <https://bugs.launchpad.net/fuel/7.0.x/+bug/1449086> >> >> >> - romcheg >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe >> <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> >> >> >> __________________________________________________________________________ >> OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) >> Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org >> <mailto:openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org>?subject:unsubscribe >> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev >> <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > <http://openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org/?subject:unsubscribe> > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev > <http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev> > > > __________________________________________________________________________ > OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe > http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
__________________________________________________________________________ OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
