:)
Thanks
Animesh
On Jan 30, 2014, at 10:32 PM, "Marcus" wrote:
> CLOUDSTACK-6000
>
> Sounds like a vacuum cleaner.
>
> On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski
> wrote:
>> Yeah, unfortunately our code should be a bit more robust in this area. The
>> second (or more) time around, the
CLOUDSTACK-6000
Sounds like a vacuum cleaner.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 3:38 PM, Mike Tutkowski
wrote:
> Yeah, unfortunately our code should be a bit more robust in this area. The
> second (or more) time around, the failed deletion of a file should probably
> not cause us trouble if, in fact, the
Yeah, unfortunately our code should be a bit more robust in this area. The
second (or more) time around, the failed deletion of a file should probably
not cause us trouble if, in fact, the file is gone (regardless of whether
or not your delete command actually deleted the file or it was gone for
so
My one hesitation is that it may cause problems by surfacing other
bugs. For example, say a delete operation succeeds in deleting the
image file, but fails in some subsequent code. The next time it runs,
it may fail in deleting the image file (file not found), and thus get
stuck in an endless loop
I agree, Marcus.
On Thu, Jan 30, 2014 at 2:42 PM, Marcus wrote:
> I think there's a hole in the volume lifecycle. I've been noticing
> volumes lingering that should have been cleaned up, and it seems to be
> a bug in the state machine for the volumes:
>
> s_fsm.addTransition(Destro
I think there's a hole in the volume lifecycle. I've been noticing
volumes lingering that should have been cleaned up, and it seems to be
a bug in the state machine for the volumes:
s_fsm.addTransition(Destroy, Event.ExpungingRequested, Expunging);
s_fsm.addTransition(Expu
