I think your idea would be acceptable risk for 4.3. The upgrade logic would have to perform this true-to-storage_tag conversion, too, though.
On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 8:00 AM, SuichII, Christopher < chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote: > I think the quickest, easiest change would be to keep using the tag name > as the key in the details table, but use a unique value like ‘storage_tag’ > instead of ‘true’. This wouldn’t require any major logic changes, just the > value used to check whether something is a storage tag. > > It is quite risky for 4.3. However my concern is that if we let this ship > with 4.3, then any plugin that wants to use a storage pool detail with the > value ‘true’ will make updating the storage tag system MUCH more difficult. > As far as I can tell, there is no other way to determine if something is a > storage tag than checking if the details table value is ‘true’. If there > are other details with the value ‘true’, then we wouldn’t be able to > differentiate between them for a DB upgrade between versions. > > -Chris > -- > Chris Suich > chris.su...@netapp.com > NetApp Software Engineer > Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions > Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat > > On Jan 24, 2014, at 9:53 AM, Mike Tutkowski <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> > wrote: > > > I think at some point we need to use a key/value for storage tags such as > > the following: > > > > storageTags=value1,value2,value3 > > > > The problem with that is you have to parse the value cell each time you > > pull it out of the DB. > > > > That might be too risky of a change, though, for 4.3 at this point. > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 24, 2014 at 5:24 AM, SuichII, Christopher < > > chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote: > > > >> I have found an additional issue related to this. The allocators do > >> properly ignore any storage pool details whose value is true that is not > >> actually a storage pool. However, the list storage pools API does NOT. > When > >> creating the StoragePoolResponse, it is still assumed that any storage > pool > >> detail with the value ‘true’ is a storage tag. > >> > >> For my plugin targeting 4.3, we create a storage pool detail with a > >> true/false value, so this causes a problem with the storage pool UI. > >> > >> Any thoughts on how to fix this? > >> > >> -Chris > >> -- > >> Chris Suich > >> chris.su...@netapp.com > >> NetApp Software Engineer > >> Data Center Platforms – Cloud Solutions > >> Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat > >> > >> On Oct 23, 2013, at 6:43 PM, Alena Prokharchyk < > >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Filed > >>> > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4942 > >>> > >>> -Alena. > >>> > >>> From: Prachi Damle <prachi.da...@citrix.com<mailto: > >> prachi.da...@citrix.com>> > >>> Date: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 2:04 PM > >>> To: Alena Prokharchyk <alena.prokharc...@citrix.com<mailto: > >> alena.prokharc...@citrix.com>>, "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto: > >> dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto: > >> dev@cloudstack.apache.org>> > >>> Subject: RE: Tags on storagePool > >>> > >>> Alena, > >>> > >>> I don’t know why it was designed this way in first place – a design > like > >> host_tags where we have separate table to store tags is much better for > >> Allocators to work on. > >>> > >>> It is a bug, but will cause problem only if we land up with situation > >> explained below: > >>> > >>> Given the existing design of storage tags, the Allocators search the > >> details table using the name = <tag-provided-in-disk-offering> and value > >> =true > >>> Thus this will cause a problem in placement only if some other storage > >> pool detail happen to have the same ‘name’ as a storage-tag and also a > >> value = true. > >>> > >>> -Prachi > >>> > >>> From: Alena Prokharchyk > >>> Sent: Wednesday, October 23, 2013 1:36 PM > >>> To: Prachi Damle; dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto: > >> dev@cloudstack.apache.org> > >>> Subject: Tags on storagePool > >>> > >>> I came across a potential bug in the way allocators do volumes > placement > >> on storage, based on storage tags. Prachi, can you please confirm if the > >> bug is real. > >>> > >>> > >>> The tags are passed to the createStoragePool API in form of > >> tags='tag1,tag2,..': > >>> > >>> ?command=createStoragePool&...&tags=alena > >>> > >>> and stored in the storage_pool_details db table as: > >>> > >>> mysql> select *from storage_pool_details where pool_id=2; > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> | id | pool_id | name | value | > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> | 2 | 2 | alenatags | true | > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> 1 row in set (0.00 sec) > >>> > >>> > >>> Allocator code assumes that everything stored in storage_pool_details > >> table, having value=true - is a storage pool tag. And this is > incorrect, as > >> the storage_pool_details table is used for storing diff kinds of storage > >> pool details - not just tags - that can be later used by various > cloudStack > >> managers. Like for example we save Storage level config parameters in > this > >> table ( > >> > https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/FS+for+Granular+Global+Configuration+Parameters > >> ). > >>> > >>> > >>> The correct way to fix it would be - store tags as: > >>> > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> | id | pool_id | name | value | > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> | 2 | 2 | tag | alena | > >>> +----+---------+-----------+-------+ > >>> > >>> > >>> and fix StorageManager to retrive all the tags by the "tag" key. We > also > >> have to fix the DB upgrade, which can be tricky as we will have to > figure > >> out which detail is a tag. > >>> > >>> > >>> -Alena. > >>> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > *Mike Tutkowski* > > *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > > e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com > > o: 303.746.7302 > > Advancing the way the world uses the > > cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> > > *™* > > -- *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud<http://solidfire.com/solution/overview/?video=play> *™*
