Re: [libvirt] [PATCH] implement BOOT_TIMEOUT

On 04/13/2011 02:15 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote: > --- > tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 2 ++ > tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++ > 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh > index f247e5e..b462ea8 100644 > --- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh > +++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh > @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default > ON_BOOT=start > ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend > SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0 > +BOOT_TIMEOUT=0 > > test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests&& > . "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests > @@ -166,6 +167,7 @@ start() { > gettext "already active"; echo > else > retval run_virsh "$uri" start "$name">/dev/null&& \ > + sleep $BOOT_TIMEOUT&& \ I think the idea of a configurable sleep between guests (so that they are staged rather than run back-to-back as fast as virsh can respond) makes sense, but don't like the name BOOT_TIMEOUT. It's not a timeout, so much as a delay. And it's not tied to BOOT (which is what the init script does when the host boots) so much as guest starts. Does the name START_DELAY work any better?

> gettext "done"; echo As written, if you have n guests, you also have n sleeps. But after the last guest, that's wasted dead time. It seems like the better usage pattern would be to sleep _before_ starting a guest, and to write the code where the first guest started skips that sleep (n guests, n-1 sleeps).