Skip to content
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

[RFE] Smartstate analysis on physical machines #77

Open
tjyang opened this issue Aug 5, 2018 · 5 comments
Open

[RFE] Smartstate analysis on physical machines #77

tjyang opened this issue Aug 5, 2018 · 5 comments

Comments

@tjyang
Copy link

tjyang commented Aug 5, 2018

Hi

MIQ nowadays is not just managing VM on VMWare,OpenStack ...
It also manage physical machines via lxca and redfish providers.
Can smartstate analysis be extended to cover physical machines ?

the forum discussion is here
http://talk.manageiq.org/t/discoverying-and-smartstate-analysis-physical-systems/3762/6

@tjyang
Copy link
Author

tjyang commented Nov 27, 2018

@roliveri , Would you please comment on this RFE ?

Also, taking snapshot on our openstack farm got denied by our openstack admins, since it put on too much load on the farm infra.

SSA should include another probe method like using ansible to collect the same info existing SSA wanted.

@roliveri
Copy link
Member

@tjyang actually, currently there are different implementations of "SSA" based on the type of object being scanned. For example, the SSA code path for virtual assets: VMs, instances, templates, etc; is different from that for hosts and storage.

So, the implementation for physical machines can differ from that of other types of objects based on polymorphism. I do wonder why and if this implementation would differ from our current SSA implementation for hosts (which are physical machines in most, if not all cases).

As for supporting multiple SSA implementations for virtual assets, I'm concerned that may lead to supportability issues. For example, different implementations may have varying constraints for the same object (can it be performed when the VM is not running, etc), so the behavior may appear to be inconsistent to the user. Also, having multiple sources of data for the same database tables and fields may lead to inconsistencies, if the sources can report different values for the same data item.

@tjyang
Copy link
Author

tjyang commented Nov 29, 2018

@tjyang actually, currently there are different implementations of "SSA" based on the type of object being scanned. For example, the SSA code path for virtual assets: VMs, instances, templates, etc; is different from that for hosts and storage.

So, the implementation for physical machines can differ from that of other types of objects based on polymorphism. I do wonder why and if this implementation would differ from our current SSA implementation for hosts (which are physical machines in most, if not all cases).

Thanks for the detail information here regarding existing SSA can scan a physical host.

My wish is to have miq managed physical hosts(via lxca or redfish) be SSA scanned from the GUI under Configuration menu.

As for supporting multiple SSA implementations for virtual assets, I'm concerned that may lead to supportability issues. For example, different implementations may have varying constraints for the same object (can it be performed when the VM is not running, etc), so the behavior may appear to be inconsistent to the user. Also, having multiple sources of data for the same database tables and fields may lead to inconsistencies, if the sources can report different values for the same data item.

I will open another issue thread do discuss SSA(Smart State Analysis) via non-snapshot approach.

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 3, 2019

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated for at least 6 months.

If you can still reproduce this issue on the current release or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

Thank you for all your contributions!

@miq-bot
Copy link
Member

miq-bot commented Jun 11, 2020

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not been updated for at least 3 months.

If you can still reproduce this issue on the current release or on master, please reply with all of the information you have about it in order to keep the issue open.

Thank you for all your contributions! More information about the ManageIQ triage process can be found in the traige process documentation.

@miq-bot miq-bot added the stale label Jun 11, 2020
@gtanzillo gtanzillo added pinned and removed stale labels Jun 29, 2020
@Fryguy Fryguy added the size/l label Mar 30, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

6 participants