cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From John Kinsella <>
Subject Re: idea of a "production" lock
Date Sat, 08 Feb 2014 03:22:34 GMT

On Feb 7, 2014, at 6:31 PM, David Nalley <> wrote:

> On Fri, Feb 7, 2014 at 9:02 PM, John Kinsella <> wrote:
>> Folks - we're getting bitten occasionally by stability issues on some of our customer
VMs indirectly related to ACS:
>> * The billing package[1] we use is touchy, and will occasionally reboot VMs when
we bring up the VM's details page in the billing package
>> * ACS recently lost connectivity with a node, asked the VR to ping the VMs but was
blocked by host firewall, so decided the VM was down and then killed it after reconnecting
to the node
>> * Something was either fat-fingered or mis-intreperted in billing package, and deleting
a licensing product from a customer resulted in it telling ACS to delete a domain, user, the
10 VMs in it and their storage (Luckily I saw the grey icon of Shutdown/Expunge and shut down
mgmt server, but not before losing one VM. Somehow I haven't had a heart attack yet)
>> My thought is each VM would have a LOCK field - when that's set, it basically becomes
"read-only" to ACS - stats are gathered, it monitors if it's up/down, but any change in running
state, the node it's on, storage, network, firewalls etc would be denied without some type
of authorization (I'm not sure what I mean here yet, if it's a separate login or maybe authenticating
to get a token and then present it with the change, or...).
>> I understand in a larger environment there's too much happening and this could backfire,
but for our customers with legacy non-cloud architectures, stability is hugely important and
anything we can do to help with that is worthwhile. Maybe in a "phase 2" of this implementation
granular controls could be added to specify what could/could not happen during "production
>> Looking to gauge interest and ideas/suggestions in something like this. Unfortunately
it just jumped pretty much to the top of my priority list...
>> John
>> 1: I'd rather not say which at this point.
> AWS has 'Termination Protection' and in that light it makes sense to me.

Hm thanks, will take a look

View raw message