All of lore.kernel.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Fabio M. Di Nitto <fdinitto@redhat.com>
To: cluster-devel.redhat.com
Subject: [Cluster-devel] RFC: generic improvement to fence agents api
Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2011 11:44:56 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <4D872C28.9060706@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4D870F14.8060209@redhat.com>

On 3/21/2011 9:40 AM, Marek Grac wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On 03/19/2011 07:34 AM, Fabio M. Di Nitto wrote:
>>     <device name="..." ports="1 2"/>
>> ....
>>
>> Either by using a new keyword "ports" or re-using "port" itself. If
>> using "port", current configuration will continue to work as-is and the
>> change effectively would not introduce any backward compatibility issue.
>>
>> This way the agent can:
>>
>> 1) connect once (reducing in most cases the ssh/telnet/whatever time)
>> 2) issue the OFF command as fast as possible (almost in parallel)
>> 3) then wait for the results.
>>
>> By adopting a list, the configuration would look cleaner too IMHO.
>>
>> A quick glance, the change should not affect fenced (David can you
>> confirm please?), and most agents could handle it via the fencing python
>> lib (Marek?).
> 
> 1) connect once will work only for connection-based fence agents. It
> won't help with SNMP + HTTP REST and there won't be any benefits for
> drac/ilo/ipmi that can turn off only one machine. Rough estimate is that
> it can help us to improve time in 1/3 to 1/2 fence agents.

Of course, it?s a benefit for a subset of the agents.

> 
> 2) parallelism is possible only on those fence devices that works in
> async mode. Issuing more than one command will also increase a need for
> QE. Some of those devices are not able even to handle 'get status'
> immediately after 'power off' (reason for --power-wait). Serialization
> within same connection is definitely possible and for fencing python lib
> we can implement that directly in library.

Assuming we agree to do it, let?s get it upstream first, then we will
worry about QE at a later stage.

I think starting from serialization within the same connection is
already a good start. The parallelism is not real anyway. I don?t expect
forking of commands as that would lead to other issues, as you already
described.

> 
> -) "ports" is better than "port" because such change will have impact
> also on UI and we have to distinguish if fence agent accept more than
> one port or not.

ACK.

> 
> -) There is no character that can't be used for name of virtual machine.

I don?t think vms are a problem here, since each vm has only one port?

Fabio



  reply	other threads:[~2011-03-21 10:44 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2011-03-19  6:34 [Cluster-devel] RFC: generic improvement to fence agents api Fabio M. Di Nitto
2011-03-19 17:14 ` Digimer
2011-03-19 17:32   ` Fabio M. Di Nitto
2011-03-19 18:44     ` Digimer
2011-03-21  8:40 ` Marek Grac
2011-03-21 10:44   ` Fabio M. Di Nitto [this message]
2011-03-21 17:07 ` David Teigland
2011-03-21 17:09   ` Digimer
2011-03-21 17:16   ` Fabio M. Di Nitto
2011-03-21 17:37   ` Lon Hohberger

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=4D872C28.9060706@redhat.com \
    --to=fdinitto@redhat.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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.