This is a part of the solution to resolve a series of issues related to "last host in up" and as a result of discussions done about Bug 869309. in order for the above to happen correctly we should: - serialize all calls to reconstruct master per pool - first call to reconstruct will run to completion and will increment version on failure, all other calls in queue (reconstruct to the same pool) should fail immediately (no call to vdsm) hence no version increment is required. - so when failing a connect storage pool on version mismatch (initVdsOnUp), we can safely send reconstruct master.
a thought - should we serialize all calls to SPM election as well ?
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/9838/ These patch will introduce a queue for all events, if some reconstruct is running, all other will be rejected.
http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/10103/
(In reply to comment #1) > a thought - should we serialize all calls to SPM election as well ? No question about it, there should only be 1 call/thread for spm election and a new call should not be sent before the previous one finished. Same goes for connectStoragePool, refreshStoragePool, getSpmID, etc.
(In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #1) > > a thought - should we serialize all calls to SPM election as well ? > > No question about it, there should only be 1 call/thread for spm election 1 call/thread per storage pool i assume
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > (In reply to comment #1) > > > a thought - should we serialize all calls to SPM election as well ? > > > > No question about it, there should only be 1 call/thread for spm election > > 1 call/thread per storage pool i assume correct
sf10.
This bug is currently attached to errata RHEA-2013:14491. If this change is not to be documented in the text for this errata please either remove it from the errata, set the requires_doc_text flag to minus (-), or leave a "Doc Text" value of "--no tech note required" if you do not have permission to alter the flag. Otherwise to aid in the development of relevant and accurate release documentation, please fill out the "Doc Text" field above with these four (4) pieces of information: * Cause: What actions or circumstances cause this bug to present. * Consequence: What happens when the bug presents. * Fix: What was done to fix the bug. * Result: What now happens when the actions or circumstances above occur. (NB: this is not the same as 'the bug doesn't present anymore') Once filled out, please set the "Doc Type" field to the appropriate value for the type of change made and submit your edits to the bug. For further details on the Cause, Consequence, Fix, Result format please refer to: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#cf_release_notes Thanks in advance.
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2013-0888.html