[gpfsug-discuss] Dry-Run functionality ?

[Jez Tucker]

Hi Marc,

     Quite.  We have had coverage of (1) and (2) in the API for some time.

My overriding thought is that (QoS aside) if one executes an 
mmapplypolicy, for whatever reason, then a certain amount of resource is 
consumed.
This may not be preferred.

So let me rephrase to the users:    in your real-world working 
environment, would you prefer:

a) Return what would be called.  E.G. mmapplypolicy -P mypol.pol --flag1 
--flag2 --etc  which is a sanity check, but not a policy run, hence no load
b) mmapplypolicy /gpfs-path -P policy-rules-file   -I test -L 2  [other 
options]`  will do a dry run and show what actions would be performed on 
each file.

To be clear; you can currently achieve either launch with the API as it 
stands.
However we'd like to know what the general concensus would prefer to be 
the norm in such an implementation.

Regarding dry run functionality this can be achieved globally as follows:

setDryRun(True)
<API commands to delete filesets>
<API commands to delete snapshots>
<API commands to migrate data>

or as a more granular decorator:

@dryrun
... def delete_filesets():
<API commands to delete filesets>

Jez


On 20/06/16 16:03, Marc A Kaplan wrote:
> *Jez,*
>
>   Regarding your recent post.  Do the mmchpolicy and mmapplypolicy 
> commands have sufficient functionality for your purposes?
> Are you suggesting some improvements?  If so, what?  Please provide 
> examples and/or specific suggestions.
>
> WRT your numbered items:
>
> (1)  `mmchpolicy fsname  -I  policy-rules-file test`   does a complete 
> syntax check on policy-rules-file and some other sanity checking.
>
> (2) `mmapplypolicy /gpfs-path/empty-directory -P policy-rules-file -I 
> test -L 0` is another way to validate policy-rules-file.  Rules like 
> MIGRATE and LIST that are interpreted by mmapplypolicy will   be 
> scrutinized. For example check that each named pool is defined either 
> within the file system or by an EXTERNAL POOL rules.
>
> (3) `mmapplypolicy /gpfs-path -P policy-rules-file   -I test -L 2 
>  [other options]`  will do a dry run and show what actions would be 
> performed on each file.
>
>
> --marc
>
> -----------
>
> API calls for Policies have the ability to run in 'test' or 'run' 
> mode.  (ref: man mmapplypolicy)
>
> How would you expect to use dry-run functionality on a policy?
> We have our own opinion, but we'd like to hear yours.
>
> 1) Validate the policy and print the policy content to stdout/other. 
>  No mmapplypolicy is performed.
> 2) Validate the policy and enforce mmapplypolicy with -I test
> 3) Return what would be called.  E.G. mmapplypolicy -P mypol.pol 
> --flag1 --flag2 --etc
> 4) Other
>
> Best regards,
>
> Jez
> -- 
> Jez Tucker
> Head of Research & Development
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> gpfsug-discuss mailing list
> gpfsug-discuss at spectrumscale.org
> http://gpfsug.org/mailman/listinfo/gpfsug-discuss


-- 
Jez Tucker
Head of Research & Development
Pixit Media
www.pixitmedia.com <http://www.pixitmedia.com>

-- 

This email is confidential in that it is intended for the exclusive 
attention of the addressee(s) indicated. If you are not the intended 
recipient, this email should not be read or disclosed to any other person. 
Please notify the sender immediately and delete this email from your 
computer system. Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the 
company from which this email was sent and, whilst to the best of our 
knowledge no viruses or defects exist, no responsibility can be accepted 
for any loss or damage arising from its receipt or subsequent use of this 
email.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gpfsug.org/pipermail/gpfsug-discuss_gpfsug.org/attachments/20160627/7ce5704f/attachment.htm>