Open Stack

Well, there are diablo-stable packages. If Ubuntu, Debian, Red Hat,  
etc. keep hearing from customers that Essex in an LTS release is not 
adequate, there will be essex-stable packages too. They are the ones who 
have to stand behind the product. It is perfectly understandable that 
there is resistance to putting anything other than fixes for critical 
bugs in a week or so from release.  I am not saying this is great, but 
if release dates are fixed and features, performance the things that are 
allowed to vary, then what else is there to do? Just my opinion.

  -David

On 3/29/2012 1:55 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
> I'm not saying it can't be rationalized; I'm saying it is frustrating 
> to me.
>
> My understanding is that Essex is going to be baked into both Ubuntu & 
> Debian for the long term - 5 years plus.   That's a long time to have 
> to keep explaining why X is broken; I'd rather just fix X.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 10:22 AM, David Kranz <david.kranz at qrclab.com 
> <mailto:david.kranz at qrclab.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 3/29/2012 12:46 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
>>
>>         Is there a good way to map back where in the code these calls
>>         are coming from?
>>
>>
>>     There's not a great way currently.  I'm trying to get a patch in
>>     for Essex which will let deployments easily turn on SQL debugging
>>     (though this is proving contentious); it will have a configurable
>>     log level to allow for future improvements, and one of the things
>>     I'd like to do is add later is something like a stack trace on
>>     'problematic' SQL (large row count, long query time).  But
>>     that'll be in Folsom, or in G if we don't get logging into Essex.
>>
>>     In the meantime, it's probably not too hard to follow the code
>>     and infer where the calls are coming from.  In the full log,
>>     there's a bit more context, and I've probably snipped some of
>>     that out; in this case the relevant code is get_metadata in the
>>     compute API service and get_instance_nw_info in the network service.
>>
>>          Regardless, large table scans should be eliminated,
>>         especially if the table is mostly read, as the hit on an
>>         extra index on insert will be completely offset by the
>>         speedups on select.
>>
>>
>>     Agreed - some of these problems are very clear-cut!
>>
>>     It does frustrate me that we've done so much programming work,
>>     but then not do the simple stuff at the end to make things work
>>     well.  It feels a bit like shipping we're shipping C code which
>>     we've compiled with -O0 instead of -O3.
>>
>
>     Well, in a project with the style of fixed-date release
>     (short-duration train-model) that openstack has, I think we have
>     to accept that there will never be time to do anything except
>     fight critical bugs "at the end". At least not until the project
>     code is much more mature. In projects I have managed we always
>     allocated time at the *beginning* of a release cycle for fixing
>     some backlogged bugs and performance work. There is less pressure
>     and the code is not yet churning. It is also important to have
>     performance benchmark tests to make sure new features do not
>     introduce performance regressions.
>
>      -David
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>     Post to     : openstack at lists.launchpad.net
>     <mailto:openstack at lists.launchpad.net>
>     Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~openstack
>     <https://launchpad.net/%7Eopenstack>
>     More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack/attachments/20120329/484f8659/attachment.html>