Skip to content

Multi-Host support for NFS3 and iSCSI#64

Open
sandeeplocharla wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/CSTACKEX-192
Open

Multi-Host support for NFS3 and iSCSI#64
sandeeplocharla wants to merge 1 commit into
mainfrom
feature/CSTACKEX-192

Conversation

@sandeeplocharla

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator

Description

This PR...
Provides support to Multi-Host for NFS3 and iSCSI

Types of changes

  • Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
  • New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
  • Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
  • Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
  • Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
  • Build/CI
  • Test (unit or integration test code)

Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity

Feature/Enhancement Scale

  • Major
  • Minor

Bug Severity

  • BLOCKER
  • Critical
  • Major
  • Minor
  • Trivial

Screenshots (if appropriate):

How Has This Been Tested?

How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?

if (!hostConnectedToPool) {
try {
logger.info("grantAccess: Host [{}] is not connected to NFS pool [{}], reconnecting host to pool", host.getId(), storagePool.getId());
boolean connected = storageManager.connectHostToSharedPool(host, storagePool.getId());

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The shared pool term is picked from the CloudStack perspective, or from the way we are approaching storage pool design. Please add code comment, if possible

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Though I'm aware that this code is a bit of a stretch, I have added with nfs protocol being enabled on a host post its addition to the storage pool. I wasn't able to simulate the scenario and looks like a rare occurence. So, on discussing with the team in the scrum today, we came to consensus that at this point we can document the pre-requisite of enabling the protocol on host and remove this code. I wanted to take your opinion on the same. So, please let me know if you feel the same?

throw new CloudRuntimeException("Invalid accessGroup object - hostsToConnect is null or empty");
}

Map<String, String> details = storagePoolDetailsDao.listDetailsKeyPairs(accessGroup.getStoragePoolId());

Copy link
Copy Markdown

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How can an NFS storage pool exist without an export policy associated with it? Based on that, I’m not sure how the null check below would help or how it would lead to creating a policy for the storage pool.

Also, could you add code comments explaining the scenarios in which the workflow would enter the if and else blocks?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Collaborator Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thankyou for pointing out. The null check has been auto-added while refactoring the code at the end.
Sure will update the necessary comments.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants