Bug 1128493

Summary: [RFE] Making fencing operations soft and configurable
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: Eli Mesika <emesika>
Component: ovirt-engineAssignee: Eli Mesika <emesika>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.5.0CC: amureini, ecohen, ehildesh, emesika, gklein, iheim, lpeer, lsurette, nsoffer, oourfali, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, yeylon
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: FutureFeature, UserExperience
Target Release: 3.6.0Flags: sherold: Triaged+
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: infra
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-04-06 08:57:03 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Infra RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
mockup: proposed design for Cluster Fencing Policy none

Description Eli Mesika 2014-08-10 20:45:56 UTC 
Description of problem:
[RFE] Making fencing operations soft and configurable

As we are adding more and more fencing types and steps like 
a) soft fencing
b) kdump fencing
c) hard fencing (reboot the machine using it PM card)
d) storage fencing (future)

There is a need to introduce a Fencing Chain mechanism that will be responsible of :

1) Which fencing steps are active.
2) What is the order in which fencing steps are executed.

The Fencing Chain should have a default that maps to the current implementation and this default may be overridden by each Cluster.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:


Steps to Reproduce:
1.
2.
3.

Actual results:


Expected results:


Additional info:
Comment 1 Einav Cohen 2014-08-18 18:49:36 UTC 
Eli - are there more details anywhere for this feature (e.g. ovirt wiki page)? we would love to help out in designing the GUI for that, if relevant. thanks.
Comment 2 Eli Mesika 2014-08-18 21:18:06 UTC 
(In reply to Einav Cohen from comment #1)
> Eli - are there more details anywhere for this feature (e.g. ovirt wiki
> page)? we would love to help out in designing the GUI for that, if relevant.
> thanks.

Einav
This will surely have a design like any new feature
I will try to elaborate more on that 

Currently we have few fencing stages 
Soft-Fencing (i.e. restarting VDSM)
Kdump fencing (i.e. wait for kdump to complete writing the dump before reboot)
Hard fencing (restart using the PM card)

We want the Fencing Policy new TAB in Cluster New/Edit to have an option to define which stages are active and in which order

Solution should be generic such that other fencing stages that might be introduced in next versions can be integrated easily (by only changing the config entry od available stages)

I hope that this shades more light on this RFE and I will CC you on the design page when I will get to it
Comment 3 Einav Cohen 2014-08-18 22:13:27 UTC 
Created attachment 928080 [details]
mockup: proposed design for Cluster Fencing Policy
Comment 4 Einav Cohen 2014-08-18 22:18:35 UTC 
Many Thanks, Eli - your explanation was extremely helpful. 
I think that we need something like attachment 928080 [details]. 

@Eldan/Liz - thoughts? do we have a PatternFly pattern for such use-case?
Comment 5 Eldan Hildesheim 2014-08-19 11:35:49 UTC 
I Spoke with Eli,
Seems like not all fencing order combinations are possible, which means that the possible option are not factorial, but Eli still has to check this out.
As I understood, there could be 1 more fencing option which means total of 4.
If the above is true, I recommend having a drop down option with all combinations inside it (~5 combinations).
In case the above is not true - all the combinations are available, I would change a bit Einav sketch and instead of dragging item from right to left, I would enable them with a checkbox, since there are only 4 and it doesn't justify a shuttle (right left drag/assign widget). The change order will need to be added then, like Einav did.
E.
Comment 6 Einav Cohen 2014-08-19 18:53:11 UTC 
(In reply to Eldan Hildesheim from comment #5)
> I Spoke with Eli,
> Seems like not all fencing order combinations are possible, which means that
> the possible option are not factorial, but Eli still has to check this out.
> As I understood, there could be 1 more fencing option which means total of 4.
> If the above is true, I recommend having a drop down option with all
> combinations inside it (~5 combinations).
> In case the above is not true - all the combinations are available, I would
> change a bit Einav sketch and instead of dragging item from right to left, I
> would enable them with a checkbox, since there are only 4 and it doesn't
> justify a shuttle (right left drag/assign widget). The change order will
> need to be added then, like Einav did.
> E.

sounds good - thanks, Eldan. 
Please keep following up with Eli, let me/Liz know if any additional assistance is needed. 
[@Liz - if you have any ideas/comments, please share]
Comment 7 Eldan Hildesheim 2014-09-01 09:14:07 UTC 
Eli, please let me know when you have any decisions regarding the Policy combinations.
Comment 8 Eli Mesika 2014-09-15 13:00:27 UTC 
(In reply to Eldan Hildesheim from comment #7)
> Eli, please let me know when you have any decisions regarding the Policy
> combinations.

RFE is entering  design phase, will update info when available
Comment 9 Oved Ourfali 2015-04-06 08:57:03 UTC 
Closing as duplicate of Bug 1158861, in which we will do many enhancements in the fencing flow, both on backend and UI.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1158861 ***