cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ahmad Emneina <aemne...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Date Thu, 31 Oct 2013 19:09:37 GMT
I agree, it was probably an afterthought. I was just justifying the desired
effect not the flag/workaround.


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Darren Shepherd <
darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:

> I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have
> to turn this setting on.  If I have no shared storage, then system VMs
> won't deploy with out this parameter.  It's just seems like a useless
> setting that might have been added because there is something else in the
> system that isn't working right.
>
> Darren
>
> > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <
> kelcey@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the
> system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the
> state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
> >
> > In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database
> even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would
> be taken.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Darren Shepherd" <darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
> > Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
> >
> > Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
> > somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
> > here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
> > situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
> >
> > Darren
> >
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message