Synchronize servers executions

[pgorgolew]

Issue to discuss @proman3419 @Agwen12

I think our app will not run correctly without locking servers that are used in currently running actions.

Example:

1. User run resize action -> our server changed state to resizing
2. User run createSnapshot action -> (not sure if state resizing is allowed, but assume not) it will fail due to wrong server state

With locking server ID's, we can prevent unexpected failures

[proman3419]

Definitely it's worth considering, I'd like to expand your idea.
We can't ignore the requests that are incoming when an id is locked, we should enqueue them.
It does matter for time or hand triggers.

I suggest something like:

Green - Y, Red - N
We would have to store task results, ideally in a db, so that a user can get the result of a task by enqueuedTaskId

[pgorgolew]

Nice one.

I'd like to show you a different usage of DB in this case.

The difference would be to always insert a request to the DB (with all needed columns -> action, params etc).

With this solution we can store all executed actions (or delete them after all) with somehow marking them as done.

[proman3419]

with somehow marking them as done
We can have a column such as state: RECEIVED, IN_PROGRESS, COMPLETED

[pgorgolew]

column such as state: RECEIVED, IN_PROGRESS, COMPLETED

Yes, also was thinking about additional column.

Rather wanted to hear opinion about my DB suggestion

[pgorgolew]

The main problem with DB is to implement it in reasonable time .
Locking will not be elegant but a quick solution, also we'll be able to skip implementing a task to trigger actions that are stored in DB

[proman3419]

column such as state: RECEIVED, IN_PROGRESS, COMPLETED

Yes, also was thinking about additional column.

Rather wanted to hear opinion about my DB suggestion

Sounds good

The main problem with DB is to implement it in reasonable time .

I don't think it'll take much time

We'll be able to skip implementing a task to trigger actions that are stored in DB

I don't get it

[pgorgolew]

I don't get it

I imagine this solution with a thread, that will be constantly looking for new records in DB to spawn another thread to run actions.

Without DB, thread will stop execution and wait for a lock