RFC: #786844 - Detection of deleted instances

Mo Morsi mmorsi at redhat.com
Thu Feb 9 14:53:53 UTC 2012


On 02/09/2012 09:23 AM, Matt Wagner wrote:
>> Heh... no Rambo missions at this point, I agree.
>>
>> Can we do b., but somehow make it less likely that we would delete
>> instances that are temporarily absent? i.e. if an instance hasn't
>> shown up in the list 5 times in a row, only then do we delete it?
>> Maybe that's just as bad as c. Let me know.
> But Rambo is so much fun!
>
> I think implementing (b) but with an event is a good plan for 1.0.
>
> I think the idea of requiring that it be absent in a few sequential
> calls is a good one, though it does lengthen the time that we show an
> instance in "running" state erroneously. But given that this is a
> stopgap fix and that status quo is to leave the instance in "running"
> forever, I think that's okay.
>
> -- Matt

How configurable can we make this delay? Eg can we allow the admin to 
change the granularity of the poll interval? Or the number of failed 
attempts before deleting the record? Or is this done on a per-request 
basis or such?

   -Mo



More information about the aeolus-devel mailing list