cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogl...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL]missing power state reports from hypervisors on VMs ([BLOCKER]?)
Date Wed, 16 Sep 2015 10:02:59 GMT
On Wed, Sep 16, 2015 at 11:46 AM, Anshul Gangwar <anshul.gangwar@citrix.com>
wrote:

> It’s not difficult to find a good grace period. It will simply depend on
> your Hypervisor settings how it is configured for HA. You can easily figure
> out for how much time there will be no VM on any Host from your settings
> and simply put 2-3 times of that period as grace period.
>
​That seems kludgey.
​


> It seems you have considered only one aspect of change i.e. User VMs HA.
> Did you consider System VMs HA?
> Did you consider that we have already explored that territory of separate
> handling of PowerOff and PowerReportMissing?
>
​for VMware or for all hypervisors? Do you have a link to the discussion?
These states are different.​

​Why was it decided to treat them the same?
​

> And even if you are still thinking of this change then add marvin tests
> for this change. Unit tests will not tell anything about the change.
>
​Yes, that I definitely agree on.​



> Regards,
> Anshul
>
> > On 16-Sep-2015, at 2:48 PM, Rene Moser <mail@renemoser.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Hi René
> >
> > On 09/16/2015 10:17 AM, Anshul Gangwar wrote:
> >> Currently we report only PowerOn VMs and do not report PowerOff VMs
> that's why we consider Missing and PowerOff as same And that's how most of
> the code is written for VM sync and each Hypervisor resource has same
> understanding. This will effect HA and many more unknown places. So please
> do not even consider to merge this change.
> >>
> >> So Now coming to bug we can fix that by changing global setting
> pingInterval to appropriate value according to hypervisor settings which
> takes care of these transitional period of missing report here or can be
> handled by introducing gracePeriod global setting.
> >
> > This is interesting, I also wrote in the bug report gracePeriod
> > calculation might be related.
> >
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/4.5.2/engine/orchestration/src/com/cloud/vm/VirtualMachinePowerStateSyncImpl.java#L110
> .
> >
> > IMHO making this value configurable would might solve it, but it is hard
> > to "guess" what a good grace period would be.
> >
> > In terms of VMware it depends on amounts of esx in the clusters, and
> > they can be different.
> >
> > But another question is, why make one _global_ grace period for every
> > hypervisor. Think about, users can have mixed hypervisors setups.
> >
> > So to me, a global grace period setting might not be the best solution,
> > instead we should take care hypervisor functionality, in this case
> > VMware, it handels HA by itself.
> >
> > I know a VR in 4.5 would be broken after an VMware HA event, but there
> > is another global setting, which can be enabled if you like for out of
> > band migrations router restarts.
> >
> > So to me, in 4.5 I am +1 for the patch of daan makes sense, if
> > hypervisor is VMware.
> >
> > Yours
> > René
> >
>
>


-- 
Daan

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