Bug 918039
Summary: | [RFE] Decouple DWH and engine | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Alon Bar-Lev <alonbl> |
Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Barak <bazulay> |
Status: | CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE | QA Contact: | |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | acathrow, emesika, iheim, jkt, lpeer, Rhev-m-bugs, yeylon, ylavi |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | 3.2.0 | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | infra | ||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2013-12-01 23:03:16 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: |
Description
Alon Bar-Lev
2013-03-05 11:19:35 UTC
Setting on future for now. Barak, feel free to move to 3.3 if you decide it's feasible should't be on every stat update - its a multithreaded stats update. can probably just a thread to update the config every x seconds or something like that, which would only work while engine is up anyway. (In reply to comment #2) > should't be on every stat update - its a multithreaded stats update. > can probably just a thread to update the config every x seconds or something > like that, which would only work while engine is up anyway. Question if less resources to do this within the stored procedure that updates the stats or perform another query. I am unsure if decoupled interval query is less resources. But never the less, will be a better solution than the existing implementation. eli - thoughts? This is in since 3.2. Closing. Yaniv (In reply to Itamar Heim from comment #4) > eli - thoughts? I think that having a field in the database for that is OK, however , I don't think that this is a configuration value so I would not put that in vdc_options rather in a separate table (engine_status or something like that) that will be a place holder for future needs as well. I like more the a thread in the BLL that will update this field periodically rather than putting that inside the SPs since we will have to put that in multiple places and we may be facing deadlock issues and such stuff. So , another thread doing the update every let say 1 min will be perfect. (In reply to Eli Mesika from comment #6) > (In reply to Itamar Heim from comment #4) > > eli - thoughts? > > I think that having a field in the database for that is OK, however , I > don't think that this is a configuration value so I would not put that in > vdc_options rather in a separate table (engine_status or something like > that) that will be a place holder for future needs as well. > > I like more the a thread in the BLL that will update this field periodically > rather than putting that inside the SPs since we will have to put that in > multiple places and we may be facing deadlock issues and such stuff. So , > another thread doing the update every let say 1 min will be perfect. This is done via heartbeat async module mperina has implemented. Yaniv |