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).
fi fi diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf index cd58728..e970a00 100644 --- a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf +++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf @@ -10,6 +10,9 @@ # libvirtd #ON_BOOT=start
+# number of seconds to wait before starting the next guest
And this would read better as "number of seconds to wait between each guest start"
+#BOOT_TIMEOUT=0 + # action taken on host shutdown # - suspend all running guests are suspended using virsh managedsave # - shutdown all running guests are asked to shutdown. Please be careful with
-- Eric Blake eblake@redhat.com +1-801-349-2682 Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org