Open Stack

On Fri, Jan 9, 2015 at 3:22 PM, Murugan, Visnusaran <
visnusaran.murugan at hp.com> wrote:

>  Steve,
>
>
>
> My reasoning to have a “--continue” like functionality was to run it as a
> periodic task and substitute continuous observer for now.
>
>
I am not in favor of the --continue as an API. I'd suggest responding to
resource timeouts and if there is no response from the task, then re-start
(continue)
the task.

-Angus


>
> “--continue” based command should work on realized vs. actual graph and
> issue a stack update.
>
>
>
> I completely agree that user action should not be needed to realize a
> partially completed stack.
>
>
>
> Your thoughts.
>
>
>
> *From:* vishnu [mailto:ckmvishnu at gmail.com]
> *Sent:* Friday, January 9, 2015 10:08 AM
> *To:* OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
> *Subject:* Re: [openstack-dev] [Heat] Precursor to Phase 1 Convergence
>
>
>
> Steve,
>
>
>
> Auto recovery is the plan. Engine failure should be detected by way of
> heartbeat or recover partially realised stack on engine startup in case of
> a single engine scenario.
>
>
>
> "--continue" command was just a additional helper api.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *Visnusaran Murugan*
>
> about.me/ckmvishnu
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 11:29 PM, Steven Hardy <shardy at redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jan 08, 2015 at 09:53:02PM +0530, vishnu wrote:
> >    Hi Zane,
> >    I was wondering if we could push changes relating to backup stack
> removal
> >    and to not load resources as part of stack. There needs to be a
> capability
> >    to restart jobs left over by dead engines.A
> >    something like heat stack-operation --continue [git rebase --continue]
>
> To me, it's pointless if the user has to restart the operation, they can do
> that already, e.g by triggering a stack update after a failed stack create.
>
> The process needs to be automatic IMO, if one engine dies, another engine
> should detect that it needs to steal the lock or whatever and continue
> whatever was in-progress.
>
> >    Had a chat with shady regarding this. IMO this would be a valuable
> >    enhancement. Notification based lead sharing can be taken up upon
> >    completion.
>
> I was referring to a capability for the service to transparently recover
> if, for example, a heat-engine is restarted during a service upgrade.
>
> Currently, users will be impacted in this situation, and making them
> manually restart failed operations doesn't seem like a super-great solution
> to me (like I said, they can already do that to some extent)
>
> Steve
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-dev/attachments/20150109/4836b370/attachment.html>