Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-26 Thread Mike Tutkowski
This actually appears to be a more general-purpose issue than I originally thought. It seems we often perform checks on the state of a given object before we submit a job to the job queue. This is fine because it is nice if we can fail early. However, some of these properties we check can change

Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-23 Thread Mike Tutkowski
I just returned to this problem a little while ago today. The original reason I asked this question was because I noticed an issue when attaching multiple volumes to a VM at the same time. The attach logic is properly funneled through the VM job queue, but it still fails (for the second attach co

Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-13 Thread Nitin Mehta
+Min. Unfortunately, I don’t think the framework is enhanced for all the different kinds of resources, but it should be the way to go. IMHO Serialization through states was/is just a hacky way of getting around the situation and should be discontinued. Ideally, state of a resource should reflect

Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-13 Thread Mike Tutkowski
It appears that the job queue is used for some commands while for others it is not. Is the intend of the job queue to only serialize operations that are sent to VMs? On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 3:14 PM, Mike Tutkowski < mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote: > This is 4.6. > > It seems like our state-

Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-13 Thread Mike Tutkowski
This is 4.6. It seems like our state-transitioning logic is intended (as one might expect) to protect the object in question from transitions that are invalid given it's current state (this is what I would expect). I do not see, say, the attach and detach operations being serialized. It seems the

Re: [QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-13 Thread Nitin Mehta
States shouldn¹t be used to serialize operations on a volume. It should be used to denote the lifecycle of the volume instead. I think the async job manager does take care of the serialization. Which version do you see this issue happening ? Thanks, -Nitin On 13/01/15 12:28 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"

[QUESTION] Attached/Detached Volume State

2015-01-13 Thread Mike Tutkowski
Hi, Does anyone know why we don't currently have a state and applicable transitions in Volume.State for attaching and detaching volumes? It seems like you'd want to, say, transition to Attaching only when you're in the Ready state (or maybe some other states, as well). I think right now you can