-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.2k
CLOUDSTACK-8800 : Improved the listVirtualMachines API call to include memory utilization information for a VM #780
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
6fde3d1 to
58f4bbb
Compare
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #518 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #519 ABORTED |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #520 ABORTED |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #521 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #451 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #452 FAILURE |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #453 FAILURE |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #454 ABORTED |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #523 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #457 ABORTED |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #456 UNSTABLE |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #524 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #458 SUCCESS |
|
LGTM (though not tested in an environment), anyone wants to review @wido @remibergsma @wilderrodrigues ? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
What does 2 mean? Can you use a constant and probably add a comment?
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #556 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-rats #557 SUCCESS |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #491 UNSTABLE |
|
cloudstack-pull-analysis #492 FAILURE |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you make this private static final and probably use caps for the constants?
|
@bhaisaab @wido @remibergsma Plz review. |
|
This looks good to me. Hard to test though :( |
|
@remibergsma @wido @bhaisaab 2 LGTMs can it be merged? |
| } else if (param.matches("vbd_.*_write")) { | ||
| vmStatsAnswer.setDiskWriteKBs(vmStatsAnswer.getDiskWriteKBs() + getDataAverage(dataNode, col, numRows) / 1000); | ||
| } else if (param.contains("memory_internal_free")) { | ||
| vmStatsAnswer.setIntFreeMemoryKBs(vmStatsAnswer.getIntFreeMemoryKBs() + getDataAverage(dataNode, col, numRows) / 1000); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Bytes to KB conversion should use 1024 instead of 1000
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Updated.Thank you.
…e memory utilization information for a VM for xenserver,kvm and for vmware.
|
Tested Manually. memorykbs, memoryintfreekbs,memorytargetkbs are listed correctly.
|
CLOUDSTACK-8800 : Improved the listVirtualMachines API call to include memory utilization information for a VMfor xenserver,kvm and for vmware. * pr/780: CLOUDSTACK-8800 : Improved the listVirtualMachines API call to include memory utilization information for a VM for xenserver,kvm and for vmware. Signed-off-by: Kishan Kavala <[email protected]>
| newStat._bytesRead = bytes_rd; | ||
| newStat._bytesWrote = bytes_wr; | ||
| newStat._timestamp = now; | ||
| newStat._intmemfree = mems[0].getValue(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is this guaranteed to have a result? This looks like it is prime to introduce a Null Pointer Exception...
|
I see this was merged into master this morning. Hmmm... |
|
|
||
| stats.setMemoryKBs(info.maxMem); | ||
| stats.setTargetMemoryKBs(info.memory); | ||
| stats.setIntFreeMemoryKBs((double) mems[0].getValue()); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the same problem pointed out by @swill at line 3128, may happen here.
|
should we revert this merge in favor of fixing these issues? |
|
@swill you can create a PR if you want. |
|
@ustcweizhou the point is more that there are things in this PR that I am not comfortable with and as the 4.9 RM, I need to be comfortable with the code that goes into master. |
|
@swill, I understand your position; as you, I also think that there was room for improvements in this PR (especially to avoid possible runtime exception). However, reverting a PR is always something complicated. I believe we should wait to hear feedback from others, before taking any decision. |
|
@rafaelweingartner I don't mind waiting a bit, but runtime exceptions need to be taken seriously. As the 4.9 RM, it is my responsibility to make sure this type of stuff is sorted out BEFORE it gets merged into master. I welcome others to give feedback, but I would recommend that we do a |
|
@swill Please do proceed with revert, I totally agree.
|
|
@swill I would not allow any other merge before this is fixed or reverted! |
|
@swill @remibergsma @DaanHoogland PR was open since Sep 2015. Review from @swill came after the PR was merged on Mar 17 2016. By then, there were code reviews and tests done with 3 LGTMs. I merged the PR as per the current process. |
|
@kishankavala you are formally correct and we had not closed master for release so I don't blame you for the merge. The issue as brought up by @swill is not to blame anybody for the merge but to preserve the quality of master before doing so. I am just saying that we should close master now and not merge anything before this is fixed or reverted, whatever. |
|
@DaanHoogland I don't see any reason for closing master in this case. If an issue is noticed after a merge, it definitely needs to be tracked and fixed. Releasing a branch can definitely be blocked if the issues (particularly regressions) are not addressed but I don't see any reason to close master for other commits. I think that closing master makes sense only if build is broken or there is a blocking regression introduced after the last release. |
|
Guys, LGTMs or not, there were no integration test results posted so it shouldn't have been merged. |
|
Hey Guys, Sorry I have been MIA on this. I have been traveling and have limited connectivity. I am going to revert this merge. There are visible problems with this merge and there were no integration tests run. @rafaelweingartner has offered to merge these changes into #1444, which fix the issues in this commit and allow us to run integration tests on this commit before merging it in. Sorry for the delay following up on this and getting a clear resolution in place. |
CLOUDSTACK-8800 : Improved the listVirtualMachines API call to include memory utilization information for a VMThis PR introduces the changes proposed in PR #780 with some work to make the code null safe. During this PR, I have also removed some unused code. * pr/1444: Removed unnecessary check when creating the “userVmResponse” object. Fixed issues from CLOUDSTACK-8800 that were introduced in PR 780 CLOUDSTACK-8800 : Improved the listVirtualMachines API call to include memory utilization information for a VM for xenserver,kvm and for vmware. Signed-off-by: Will Stevens <[email protected]>
* Remember tab on page change * fix for resourceview * Fix instance tab * Fix vpc tab * Fix kubernetes tab Signed-off-by: Rohit Yadav <[email protected]>
for xenserver,kvm and for vmware.