Open Stack

The confirm will happen automatically, after a period of time.
Maybe 0 is a valid option there, I can't remember.

John

On 1 July 2013 03:18, guohliu <guohliu at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 06/28/2013 05:58 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>
>> I am not sure its worth the extra calls.
>>
>> Hopefully once we have live-migrate and cold-migrate/resize refactor
>> done we can add a new single API that better combines the different
>> approaches, which should remove the confusion.
>>
>> Thinking about it, that should sove the issue about the different states
>> too.
>>
>> John
>>
>> On 28 June 2013 09:18, guohliu <guohliu at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> On 06/27/2013 07:05 PM, John Garbutt wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen any plans to change this.
>>>>
>>>> The way I see it, the states make most sense for resize, which is the
>>>> end-user facing operation.
>>>>
>>>> Personally I see migrate as a more admin focused operation.
>>>> So to help simplify the code, I am OK with slightly confusing states
>>>> for those users.
>>>> The exception, I guess, is when users want to "re-balance" their
>>>> servers between availability zones.
>>>>
>>>> With any luck, post refactor, it should be easier to re-visit this,
>>>> and perhaps add those extra states.
>>>>
>>>> John
>>>>
>>>> On 27 June 2013 09:14, guohliu <guohliu at linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Greetings,
>>>>>
>>>>> I apologize if this question was already covered and I missed it, as we
>>>>> know
>>>>> the migrate and resize share the same code path as well as instance
>>>>> status,
>>>>> notification message etc in current code base, somehow it might confuse
>>>>> the
>>>>> user when he/she perform migrate but get VERIFY_RESIZE status, and as
>>>>> far
>>>>> as
>>>>> I know this wasn't to be targeted in migrate refactor work, I just
>>>>> wondering
>>>>> to know do you think this is a issue? how about to separate migrate and
>>>>> resize with different instance status and notification message as well
>>>>> as
>>>>> task status? any comments would be appreciated.
>>>>>
>>>>> Best Regards
>>>>> Guohliu
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>>>
>>> Hi John,
>>>
>>> Thanks for your comments, it makes sense to me, the resize is all good,
>>> we
>>> might just need to slightly separate migrate status based on resize code
>>> logic, but one exception is we might need to add confirm migrate and
>>> revert
>>> migrate in admin action. thoughts?
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Guohliu
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> OpenStack-dev mailing list
>> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
>> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
>>
> I prefer that we don't need confirm and revert for migrate, because it
> doesn't like resize, server location is not a transparent info compare to
> flavor type, when migrate finish, that's it, thoughts? I would like to
> propose a patch for detail discussion.
>
>
> Regards
> Guohliu
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> OpenStack-dev mailing list
> OpenStack-dev at lists.openstack.org
> http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev