Terremark libcloud implementation starts nodes in a suspended state

[Tom White]

I've created a patch to power on a node after it is deployed. Please
see http://github.com/tomwhite/libcloud/commit/2add44743acf34c7fafb796f790a8e8b90c3d173.
After the deploy command is issued the task is polled until it is
completed, then the power on command is issued.

I have also updated the unit tests to test for this change. In doing
so I have rewritten them to be fully Terremark-specific, since I
believe they are currently a mix of Hosting.com and Terremark XML. I
don't have a Hosting.com account, so I'm not sure that the code works
with Hosting.com. A parallel HostingComTests is the best way to do
this I think.

Thanks,
Tom

[Tom White]

The destroy_node implementation is not working correctly with
Terremark since it does not wait after power off and undeploy calls.
The result is that the node is not deleted. I've fixed this in
http://github.com/tomwhite/libcloud. With this change I think libcloud
works properly with Terremark.

Cheers,
Tom

[Jeremy Orem]

The patches look good, but I do have one concern. The
_wait_for_task_completion function will loop for an indefinite amount
of time and will block anything using libcloud, possibly forever. It
would be great if we could do this asynchronously, but that wouldn't
match the interface. Any other ideas on how we could do this?

-Jeremy

On Nov 16, 1:41 pm, Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The destroy_node implementation is not working correctly with
> Terremark since it does not wait after power off and undeploy calls.

> The result is that the node is not deleted. I've fixed this inhttp://github.com/tomwhite/libcloud. With this change I think libcloud

> works properly with Terremark.
>
> Cheers,
> Tom
>

> On Fri, Nov 13, 2009 at 5:26 PM, Tom White <tom.e.wh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I've created a patch to power on a node after it is deployed. Please

> > seehttp://github.com/tomwhite/libcloud/commit/2add44743acf34c7fafb796f79....

[Tom White]

I agree that it's not great as it stands (I left a TODO in the code).
How about adding a timeout, so clients don't block indefinitely at
least? This will maintain the contract of the libcloud interface.

Tom

> --
>
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "libcloud" group.
> To post to this group, send email to libc...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to libcloud+u...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/libcloud?hl=.
>
>
>

[Jeremy Orem]

A timeout sounds good to me.

-Jeremy

[Tom White]

I'll update the patch.

Tom

[Tom White]

I've modified the code to add timeouts here:
http://github.com/tomwhite/libcloud/commit/9f3348662ad8b5d6db7b8a56e253abb6cdd0fcec.

I tested this manually by changing the timeout to a small value and
observed that it did timeout before a node was created.

Tom