Alena,
I see that you had added this config setting. Any specific reason that this
only for Start/Stop/Copy and not for all the commands as Alex mentioned? The
name of the setting looks generic.
-Koushik
On 03-Oct-2013, at 8:10 PM, Alex Ough <alex.o...@sungard.com> wrote:
> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
