[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Xen-API] Additional vm power state values
Ewan Mellor wrote:
On Mon, Aug 21, 2006 at 03:48:45PM -0600, Jim Fehlig wrote:
Currently vm_power_state enumeration contains Halted, Paused, Running,
Suspended, ShuttingDown, and Unknown values. Since ShuttingDown is in
the list can we add Activating, Suspending, (Migrating?)? I point out
ShuttingDown because it, like the proposed additions, indicate that a
state transition is in progress. I don't consider them vm power states
so perhaps they should be defined separately.
Yes, you're right that it is inconsistent at the moment. After an awful lot
of argument with folks here, we've come to the conclusion that we _should_
include those transition states as well. You're right that they're not really
power states, but then John Levon complained about that name too -- perhaps
his suggestion of 'run state' would be better? IIRC, the CIM VirtualSystem
profile is going to reuse the core PowerState, so perhaps we can put up with
the odd naming too.
PowerState is optional. EnabledState is the preferred property used to
reflect this information. FYI, currently defined values are:
Unknown, Other, Enabled, Disabled, Shutting Down, Not Applicable,
Enabled but Offline, In Test, Deferred, Quiesce, Starting
Regardless of what we call it, I'm happy with the transition states being in
that field along with the "steady" states. It is important to note that in
some cases the client may not see the transition state -- the guest may seem
to have atomically shifted from Halted to Running without going through
Activating, for example. As long as this is understood and documented
behaviour, I don't see this as a problem though.
How does that sound?
Sounds good :-)
xen-api mailing list