* Many same managed domain
@ 2007-07-22 5:09 Masaki Kanno
2007-07-22 10:30 ` Mats Petersson
2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
0 siblings, 2 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Masaki Kanno @ 2007-07-22 5:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Hi,
When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
I saw many same managed domain as follows.
# xm list
Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 51.9
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm list
Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 56.3
vm1 256 1 0.0
vm1 256 1 0.0
vm1 256 1 0.0
But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
I did not see same managed domain as follows.
# xm list
Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 69.9
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
# xm list
Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 74.4
vm1 256 1 0.0
I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
uuid parameter. What do you think?
Best regards,
Kan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-22 5:09 Many same managed domain Masaki Kanno
@ 2007-07-22 10:30 ` Mats Petersson
2007-07-24 2:36 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
1 sibling, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mats Petersson @ 2007-07-22 10:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masaki Kanno, xen-devel
At 06:09 22/07/2007, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>Hi,
>
>When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
>I saw many same managed domain as follows.
>
># xm list
>Name ID Mem
>VCPUs State Time(s)
>Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 51.9
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm list
>Name ID Mem
>VCPUs State Time(s)
>Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 56.3
>vm1 256 1 0.0
>vm1 256 1 0.0
>vm1 256 1 0.0
>
>
>But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
>I did not see same managed domain as follows.
>
># xm list
>Name ID Mem
>VCPUs State Time(s)
>Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 69.9
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
># xm list
>Name ID Mem
>VCPUs State Time(s)
>Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 74.4
>vm1 256 1 0.0
>
>
>I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
>uuid parameter. What do you think?
Either that, or check that the name isn't a duplicate - I added such
a check for "xm create" and "xm restore" about two months ago,
because it would allow multiple instances of the same domain (with
the same UUID - something I never got to the bottom of).
--
Mats
>Best regards,
> Kan
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-22 5:09 Many same managed domain Masaki Kanno
2007-07-22 10:30 ` Mats Petersson
@ 2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-22 22:20 ` Mats Petersson
` (2 more replies)
1 sibling, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel P. Berrange @ 2007-07-22 14:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masaki Kanno; +Cc: xen-devel
On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
> Hi,
>
> When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
> I saw many same managed domain as follows.
>
> # xm list
> Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 51.9
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm list
> Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 56.3
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> vm1 256 1 0.0
>
>
> But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
> I did not see same managed domain as follows.
>
> # xm list
> Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 69.9
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> # xm list
> Name ID Mem VCPUs State Time(s)
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 74.4
> vm1 256 1 0.0
>
>
> I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
> uuid parameter. What do you think?
No that would break backwards compatability for user who rely on Xen
autogenerating the UUID.
In order to maintain back-compatability with existing use cases, the user
needs to be able to update the existing VM config with 'xm new' if the name
or UUID match, while preventing multiple VMs with same name. So the the rules
when defining a new VM need to follow this logic
- If the UUID is not specified
- If a VM with same name exists
=> Update the config for that existing VM
- Else no vm with same name exists
=> Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
- Else UUID is specified
- If a VM with same UUID exists
- If name is different
=> Error
- Else if name is same
=> Update the config for that existing VM
- Else no VM with same UUID exists
=> Define a branch new VM with that name
Depending on where in the XenD code you put this error checking you may need
some extra special case rules handle stuff like localhost migration.
Regards,
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
@ 2007-07-22 22:20 ` Mats Petersson
2007-07-24 3:12 ` Masaki Kanno
[not found] ` <9BC7CDA074E023kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu. com>
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Mats Petersson @ 2007-07-22 22:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel P. Berrange, Masaki Kanno; +Cc: xen-devel
At 15:46 22/07/2007, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
> > I saw many same managed domain as follows.
> >
> > # xm list
> > Name ID Mem
> VCPUs State Time(s)
> >
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 51.9
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm list
> > Name ID Mem
> VCPUs State Time(s)
> >
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 56.3
> >
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> >
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> >
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> >
> >
> > But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
> > I did not see same managed domain as follows.
> >
> > # xm list
> > Name ID Mem
> VCPUs State Time(s)
> >
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 69.9
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
> > Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
> > # xm list
> > Name ID Mem
> VCPUs State Time(s)
> >
> Domain-0 0 941 2 r----- 74.4
> >
> vm1 256 1 0.0
> >
> >
> > I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
> > uuid parameter. What do you think?
>
>No that would break backwards compatability for user who rely on Xen
>autogenerating the UUID.
>
>In order to maintain back-compatability with existing use cases, the user
>needs to be able to update the existing VM config with 'xm new' if the name
>or UUID match, while preventing multiple VMs with same name. So the the rules
>when defining a new VM need to follow this logic
>
> - If the UUID is not specified
> - If a VM with same name exists
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no vm with same name exists
> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
> - Else UUID is specified
> - If a VM with same UUID exists
> - If name is different
> => Error
> - Else if name is same
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
> => Define a branch new VM with that name
>
>Depending on where in the XenD code you put this error checking you may need
>some extra special case rules handle stuff like localhost migration.
With live migration/save&restore, you shouldn't need to worry about
the name [1], but obviously, the UUID should be the same for the new
and old migrated domain, and live migration should be allowed to "localhost".
[1] Part of "xm save/migrate" is to prepend "migrating" to the name
of the domain, so there should be no name conflict with live
migration when the new domain is created.
--
Mats
>Regards,
>Dan.
>--
>|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
>|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
>|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
>|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
>
>_______________________________________________
>Xen-devel mailing list
>Xen-devel@lists.xensource.com
>http://lists.xensource.com/xen-devel
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-22 10:30 ` Mats Petersson
@ 2007-07-24 2:36 ` Masaki Kanno
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Masaki Kanno @ 2007-07-24 2:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Mats Petersson, xen-devel
>At 06:09 22/07/2007, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>>Hi,
>>
>>When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
>>I saw many same managed domain as follows.
>>
>># xm list
>>Name ID Mem
>>VCPUs State Time(s)
>>Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>>51.9
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm list
>>Name ID Mem
>>VCPUs State Time(s)
>>Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>>56.3
>>vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>
>>
>>But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
>>I did not see same managed domain as follows.
>>
>># xm list
>>Name ID Mem
>>VCPUs State Time(s)
>>Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>>69.9
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>>Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>># xm list
>>Name ID Mem
>>VCPUs State Time(s)
>>Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>>74.4
>>vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>
>>
>>I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
>>uuid parameter. What do you think?
>
>
>Either that, or check that the name isn't a duplicate - I added such
>a check for "xm create" and "xm restore" about two months ago,
>because it would allow multiple instances of the same domain (with
>the same UUID - something I never got to the bottom of).
Thanks for your opinion.
Your patch is changeset 15168, isn't it?
Best regards,
Kan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-22 22:20 ` Mats Petersson
@ 2007-07-24 3:12 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-24 13:25 ` Daniel Berrange
[not found] ` <9BC7CDA074E023kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu. com>
2 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Masaki Kanno @ 2007-07-24 3:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel P. Berrange; +Cc: xen-devel
>On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> When I tested xm new command without uuid parameter repeatedly,
>> I saw many same managed domain as follows.
>>
>> # xm list
>> Name ID Mem VCPUs State
>> Time(s)
>> Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>> 51.9
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm list
>> Name ID Mem VCPUs State
>> Time(s)
>> Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>> 56.3
>> vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>> vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>> vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>
>>
>> But, when I tested xm new command with uuid parameter repeatedly,
>> I did not see same managed domain as follows.
>>
>> # xm list
>> Name ID Mem VCPUs State
>> Time(s)
>> Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>> 69.9
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm new /xen/vm1.conf uuid="aaaaaaaa-bbbb-cccc-dddd-eeeeeeeeeeee"
>> Using config file "/xen/vm1.conf".
>> # xm list
>> Name ID Mem VCPUs State
>> Time(s)
>> Domain-0 0 941 2 r-----
>> 74.4
>> vm1 256 1
>> 0.0
>>
>>
>> I think that xm new command should cause a command error if without
>> uuid parameter. What do you think?
>
>No that would break backwards compatability for user who rely on Xen
>autogenerating the UUID.
>
>In order to maintain back-compatability with existing use cases, the user
>needs to be able to update the existing VM config with 'xm new' if the name
>or UUID match, while preventing multiple VMs with same name. So the the
>rules
>when defining a new VM need to follow this logic
>
> - If the UUID is not specified
> - If a VM with same name exists
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no vm with same name exists
> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
> - Else UUID is specified
> - If a VM with same UUID exists
> - If name is different
> => Error
> - Else if name is same
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
> => Define a branch new VM with that name
Thanks for your explanation.
I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
- If the UUID is not specified
- If a VM with same name exists
=> Update the config for that existing VM
- Else no vm with same name exists
=> Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
- Else UUID is specified
- If a VM with same UUID exists
- If name is different
=> Error
- Else if name is same
=> Update the config for that existing VM
- Else no VM with same UUID exists
- => Define a branch new VM with that name
+ - If name is different
+ => Define a branch new VM with that name
+ - Else if name is same
+ => Error
Best regards,
Kan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-24 3:12 ` Masaki Kanno
@ 2007-07-24 13:25 ` Daniel Berrange
2007-07-24 14:47 ` Masaki Kanno
0 siblings, 1 reply; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Berrange @ 2007-07-24 13:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Masaki Kanno; +Cc: xen-devel
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:12:24PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>
> >On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
> >
> >No that would break backwards compatability for user who rely on Xen
> >autogenerating the UUID.
> >
> >In order to maintain back-compatability with existing use cases, the user
> >needs to be able to update the existing VM config with 'xm new' if the name
> >or UUID match, while preventing multiple VMs with same name. So the the
> >rules
> >when defining a new VM need to follow this logic
> >
> > - If the UUID is not specified
> > - If a VM with same name exists
> > => Update the config for that existing VM
> > - Else no vm with same name exists
> > => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
> > - Else UUID is specified
> > - If a VM with same UUID exists
> > - If name is different
> > => Error
> > - Else if name is same
> > => Update the config for that existing VM
> > - Else no VM with same UUID exists
> > => Define a branch new VM with that name
>
> Thanks for your explanation.
> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
>
> - If the UUID is not specified
> - If a VM with same name exists
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no vm with same name exists
> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
> - Else UUID is specified
> - If a VM with same UUID exists
> - If name is different
> => Error
> - Else if name is same
> => Update the config for that existing VM
> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
> + - If name is different
> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
> + - Else if name is same
> + => Error
Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
a VM with same name, but different UUID.
Dan,
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-24 13:25 ` Daniel Berrange
@ 2007-07-24 14:47 ` Masaki Kanno
0 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Masaki Kanno @ 2007-07-24 14:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel P. Berrange; +Cc: xen-devel
>On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 12:12:24PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>>
>> >On Sun, Jul 22, 2007 at 02:09:01PM +0900, Masaki Kanno wrote:
>> >
>> >No that would break backwards compatability for user who rely on Xen
>> >autogenerating the UUID.
>> >
>> >In order to maintain back-compatability with existing use cases, the user
>> >needs to be able to update the existing VM config with 'xm new' if the
>> >name
>> >or UUID match, while preventing multiple VMs with same name. So the the
>> >rules
>> >when defining a new VM need to follow this logic
>> >
>> > - If the UUID is not specified
>> > - If a VM with same name exists
>> > => Update the config for that existing VM
>> > - Else no vm with same name exists
>> > => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
>> > - Else UUID is specified
>> > - If a VM with same UUID exists
>> > - If name is different
>> > => Error
>> > - Else if name is same
>> > => Update the config for that existing VM
>> > - Else no VM with same UUID exists
>> > => Define a branch new VM with that name
>>
>> Thanks for your explanation.
>> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
>> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
>>
>> - If the UUID is not specified
>> - If a VM with same name exists
>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>> - Else no vm with same name exists
>> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
>> - Else UUID is specified
>> - If a VM with same UUID exists
>> - If name is different
>> => Error
>> - Else if name is same
>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
>> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
>> + - If name is different
>> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
>> + - Else if name is same
>> + => Error
>
>Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
>a VM with same name, but different UUID.
Thanks for your reply.
I will write a patch based on the logic.
Best regards,
Kan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
[not found] ` <9BC7CDA074E023kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu. com>
@ 2007-07-25 0:16 ` Jim Fehlig
2007-07-25 7:16 ` Masaki Kanno
` (2 more replies)
0 siblings, 3 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jim Fehlig @ 2007-07-25 0:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: xen-devel
Daniel Berrange wrote:
[snip]
>> Thanks for your explanation.
>> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
>> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
>>
>> - If the UUID is not specified
>> - If a VM with same name exists
>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>> - Else no vm with same name exists
>> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
>> - Else UUID is specified
>> - If a VM with same UUID exists
>> - If name is different
>> => Error
>> - Else if name is same
>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
>> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
>> + - If name is different
>> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
>> + - Else if name is same
>> + => Error
>>
>
> Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
> a VM with same name, but different UUID.
>
As a side note, Xen API allows for domains with same name - in spec at
least :-).
((VM ref) Set) VM.get_by_name_label (session_id s, string label)
Return Type: (VM ref) Set
references to objects with match names
Jim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-25 0:16 ` Jim Fehlig
@ 2007-07-25 7:16 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-25 13:23 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-26 17:20 ` Jim Fehlig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Masaki Kanno @ 2007-07-25 7:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Fehlig, xen-devel
>Daniel Berrange wrote:
>[snip]
>>> Thanks for your explanation.
>>> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
>>> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
>>>
>>> - If the UUID is not specified
>>> - If a VM with same name exists
>>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>>> - Else no vm with same name exists
>>> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
>>> - Else UUID is specified
>>> - If a VM with same UUID exists
>>> - If name is different
>>> => Error
>>> - Else if name is same
>>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>>> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
>>> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
>>> + - If name is different
>>> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
>>> + - Else if name is same
>>> + => Error
>>>
>>
>> Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
>> a VM with same name, but different UUID.
>>
>
>As a side note, Xen API allows for domains with same name - in spec at
>least :-).
Hmm..... What should I do?
Thanks,
Kan
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-25 0:16 ` Jim Fehlig
2007-07-25 7:16 ` Masaki Kanno
@ 2007-07-25 13:23 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-26 17:20 ` Jim Fehlig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Daniel P. Berrange @ 2007-07-25 13:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Jim Fehlig; +Cc: xen-devel
On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:16:57PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
> Daniel Berrange wrote:
> [snip]
> >> Thanks for your explanation.
> >> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
> >> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
> >>
> >> - If the UUID is not specified
> >> - If a VM with same name exists
> >> => Update the config for that existing VM
> >> - Else no vm with same name exists
> >> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
> >> - Else UUID is specified
> >> - If a VM with same UUID exists
> >> - If name is different
> >> => Error
> >> - Else if name is same
> >> => Update the config for that existing VM
> >> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
> >> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
> >> + - If name is different
> >> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
> >> + - Else if name is same
> >> + => Error
> >>
> >
> > Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
> > a VM with same name, but different UUID.
> >
>
> As a side note, Xen API allows for domains with same name - in spec at
> least :-).
That is madness. Name uniqueness is assumed in pretty much every single
management tool I've ever seen, not least 'xm'. ID is unique amongst all
running domains, Name is unique amongst running and inactive guests on a
single host, UUID is unique globsally.
Dan.
--
|=- Red Hat, Engineering, Emerging Technologies, Boston. +1 978 392 2496 -=|
|=- Perl modules: http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ -=|
|=- Projects: http://freshmeat.net/~danielpb/ -=|
|=- GnuPG: 7D3B9505 F3C9 553F A1DA 4AC2 5648 23C1 B3DF F742 7D3B 9505 -=|
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
* Re: Many same managed domain
2007-07-25 0:16 ` Jim Fehlig
2007-07-25 7:16 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-25 13:23 ` Daniel P. Berrange
@ 2007-07-26 17:20 ` Jim Fehlig
2 siblings, 0 replies; 12+ messages in thread
From: Jim Fehlig @ 2007-07-26 17:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Daniel P. Berrange; +Cc: xen-devel
Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 24, 2007 at 06:16:57PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
>
>> Daniel Berrange wrote:
>> [snip]
>>
>>>> Thanks for your explanation.
>>>> I have a question to your logic. I think that the logic need a VM
>>>> name check when no VM with same UUID exists. Am I right?
>>>>
>>>> - If the UUID is not specified
>>>> - If a VM with same name exists
>>>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>>>> - Else no vm with same name exists
>>>> => Define a brand new VM with auto-generated UUID
>>>> - Else UUID is specified
>>>> - If a VM with same UUID exists
>>>> - If name is different
>>>> => Error
>>>> - Else if name is same
>>>> => Update the config for that existing VM
>>>> - Else no VM with same UUID exists
>>>> - => Define a branch new VM with that name
>>>> + - If name is different
>>>> + => Define a branch new VM with that name
>>>> + - Else if name is same
>>>> + => Error
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Yes you are correct - if UUID does not clash we still need to check for
>>> a VM with same name, but different UUID.
>>>
>>>
>> As a side note, Xen API allows for domains with same name - in spec at
>> least :-).
>>
>
> That is madness. Name uniqueness is assumed in pretty much every single
> management tool I've ever seen, not least 'xm'. ID is unique amongst all
> running domains, Name is unique amongst running and inactive guests on a
> single host, UUID is unique globsally.
>
Well, I agree and thought there was some discussion about this on Xen
API ml quite some time ago but looking through the archives can't seem
to find it. I do not recall what arguments were made in favor of
domains with same name. Ewan may have some recollection.
Given the current consensus, I should submit a patch to fix Xen API
documentation and code and put this to rest for good. Any objections?
Jim
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 12+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2007-07-26 17:20 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2007-07-22 5:09 Many same managed domain Masaki Kanno
2007-07-22 10:30 ` Mats Petersson
2007-07-24 2:36 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-22 14:46 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-22 22:20 ` Mats Petersson
2007-07-24 3:12 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-24 13:25 ` Daniel Berrange
2007-07-24 14:47 ` Masaki Kanno
[not found] ` <9BC7CDA074E023kanno.masaki@jp.fujitsu. com>
2007-07-25 0:16 ` Jim Fehlig
2007-07-25 7:16 ` Masaki Kanno
2007-07-25 13:23 ` Daniel P. Berrange
2007-07-26 17:20 ` Jim Fehlig
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.