[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: [libvirt] RFC New virDomainBlockPull API family to libvirt



On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:40 PM, Kevin Wolf <kwolf redhat com> wrote:
> Am 20.07.2011 15:12, schrieb Stefan Hajnoczi:
>> On Wed, Jul 20, 2011 at 2:00 PM, Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha gmail com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 9:10 PM, Adam Litke <agl us ibm com> wrote:
>>>> On 07/18/2011 09:35 AM, Stefan Hajnoczi wrote:
>>>>>>>>>   On the other hand I suspect that we are missing the mechanism to
>>>>>>>>> control the rate of the transfer in the new API, which is something
>>>>>>>>> which could be implemented in the old incremental mechanism, but not
>>>>>>>>> anymore. So I wonder if the virDomainBlockPull() shouldn't get an
>>>>>>>>> "unsigned long bandwidth" (to stay coherent with migration APIs)
>>>>>>>>> before the flags. I don't know if the support is ready in QEmu but
>>>>>>>>> I suspect that will be an important point, so if not present will
>>>>>>>>> be added :-)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hopefully Stefan can comment on any throttling mechanisms that might be
>>>>>>>> added to the qemu implementation.  It would be nice to have this feature
>>>>>>>> built into the API to match the migration APIs, but if that is not
>>>>>>>> feasible then we could always add it later.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If we follow the live migration API then a block_stream_set_speed
>>>>>>> command would be used.  libvirt would issue it as a separate command
>>>>>>> immediately after starting the streaming operation.  There is the
>>>>>>> window of time after streaming has started but before
>>>>>>> block_stream_set_speed has been called where no throttling takes
>>>>>>> place, but I don't think this is a practical problem.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It also opens the possibility of allowing the user to change the rate
>>>>>>> limit value while the block streaming operation is active.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In light of our decision to provide a generic BlockJobAbort/BlockJobInfo
>>>>>> interface, should SetSpeed be generic too?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> virDomainBlockJobSetSpeed() or virDomainBlockPullSetSpeed() ?
>>>>>
>>>>> The block_stream_set_speed semantics allow the command to be used when
>>>>> no streaming operation is active.  This can be used to set the speed
>>>>> without a window of time after creation and before set_speed is
>>>>> called.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we switch to block_job_set_speed then it is cleaner to restrict the
>>>>> command to work on active jobs only.  This is because there is only
>>>>> one "speed" variable kept but there might be multiple job types
>>>>> (streaming, compaction, etc) which would need different settings.
>>>>>
>>>>> What do you think about this?
>>>>
>>>> I think the block_job_set_speed semantics seem reasonable to me. What is
>>>> the method for querying the current speed setting?  I would suggest
>>>> extending the query-block-job command to include this information.  In
>>>> this case, I would extend virDomainBlockJobInfo to contain:
>>>>
>>>>        /* The maximum allowable bandwidth for this job (MB/s) */
>>>>        unsigned long bandwidth;
>>>
>>> Working QEMU code is pushed to:
>>> http://repo.or.cz/w/qemu/stefanha.git/shortlog/refs/heads/stream-command
>>>
>>> I am updating the QEMU wiki page with the latest changes.
>>
>> v4 posted:
>> http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/LiveBlockMigration/ImageStreamingAPI
>>
>> Adam: block_job_set_speed fully updated.
>>
>> Kevin: we talked about error values earlier.  Internally we really
>> only have an errno value when streaming fails.  I have converted this
>> to a human-readable string.
>
> If the human can read English. :-)
>
> And even though I do, I really don't like messages like I got from the
> Fedora updater in earlier versions ("You have 42 Aktualisierungen"), so
> plain strings aren't going to work well. This is true even for localised
> strerror output, as the client may use a different language than the server.
>
> I think this has been discussed multiple time in the past (we wanted to
> somehow expose something useful on I/O errors).

That's true but is there a better solution?

I'm not very enthusiastic about localizing systems software because
the error messages end up being gibberish in other languages anyway.
The translations are often literal or babelfish-style when it comes to
systems software.  Segmentation fault, Bus error, Overflow - I cringe
when I see them translated.  It's a bit of a personal rant, I know,
but wasted effort IMO.  Still better than error code #1524-1352 :).

Stefan


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]