cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexey Zilber <alexeyzil...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
Date Tue, 26 Jun 2012 03:00:53 GMT
Hi Edison,

   Please see my responses inline below:

On Tue, Jun 26, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Edison Su <Edison.su@citrix.com> wrote:

>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Friday, June 22, 2012 7:51 PM
> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> >
> > Well, yes and no (to your deployment model point).  Say you set KVM
> > first
> > (which I did before).  According to the docs, KVM doesn't support local
> > storage, so it's left disabled.  Then, Xen is added, and local storage
>
> KVM does support local storage. Which document are you referred to? Must
> be a bug in the document.
>
Hmmm.  According to the CS 3.0 install doc pdf, page 134 (Storage Setup)
says no support.  Then again, on page 121, the chart shows support.
I'm pretty sure as well that the doc was updated a few times already,
because I remember seeing more references to no support.

Regardless, as per my experience, with local storage turned on, with a
Xenserver cluster already running, adding a KVM cluster (and host) blows up
CS.  It was so bad even the UI was unusable.  I've spoken to a colleague of
mine who's had similar experiences.


>
> > support is turned on.  At which point, CS will blow up.  Turning it
> > back
> > off won't fix things.  Removing Xen won't fix things, so that's
> > certainly
> > an issue.  I don't think local storage should even be an option
> > considering
>
> For local storage, before adding any hypervisor hosts, remember to setup
> three things:
> 1. use.local.storage =  true
> 2. system.vm.use.local.storage = true
> 3. Create a service offering with storage type = local
>

Yes, all this has been tried at least 20 times.  It's broken.  I've even a
few times followed page 67 of the CS 3.0 install doc and
inserted system.vm.local.storage.required = true into the db, as per the
doc. (Probably doc is out of date though).  These things DO work with
xenserver.  I've even been able to launch a user vm once.  But when I added
a KVM cluster the whole thing exploded.  So it's a roll of the dice every
time I set it up.


> Then I am pretty sure that local storage will work well, if you create vm
> with the service offering created in above 3.
>

See above.  It worked once.


> Also, you can add shared storages in clusters, then you can create vm with
> service offering whose storage type is shared.
> If you are not scared by the blooding experience with local storage
> before, how about try again?:)
>
>
I really cannot afford to spend another week on this.   How about you build
a setup in your lab with the same config and confirm (or not) that it's
broken.
I've used both the simple networking option and advanced setup, though with
simple, you have to setup shared storage first.

Thanks,
Alex


>  > how scary it is.  If, on the other hand, you start off with Xen, turn
> > the
> > local storage options on, then do an advanced install, it'll work.
> > That
> > is, until you add something that doesn't support local storage.
> >
> > I think the local storage support should be per-cluster, not global.
> > For
> > some reason I think it really chokes when you mix clusters that have
> > mixed
> > support for local storage.
> >
> > But anyway, now that I'm not using local storage at all, things are
> > actually stable and running ok with two hypervisors.   It's just my
> > luck
> > that when I first jumped into CS I was like 'oh wow, I can just use
> > local
> > storage!' and I focused on fighting it to set it up, which wasted a ton
> > of
> > time.
> >
> > So yeah, local storage should either be pulled, or documented that it's
> > not
> > fully supported/buggy.  Other then that, CS 3.0.2 is finally running ok.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > -Alexey
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2012 at 2:31 AM, Ahmad Emneina
> > <Ahmad.Emneina@citrix.com>wrote:
> >
> > > Typically people would not switch deployment models, in production,
> > > without testing on some staging/preproduction environment. Alexey has
> > a
> > > valid gripe here in that certain flags can cause unwanted or even
> > buggy
> > > behavior.
> > >
> > > On 6/22/12 7:39 AM, "Alexey Zilber" <alexeyzilber@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Hi,
> > > >
> > > >  Yes, that solution did not work.  I think though in that
> > particular case
> > > >the issue was different (it was about 4-5 installs back).  The only
> > > >service
> > > >offering that seems relevant is a compute offering that uses either
> > shared
> > > >or local storage.  I had both types setup and neither worked, so I
> > think
> > > >there was something further wrong with that particular setup.  Local
> > > >storage just doesn't work for me.  I believe I did get it running
> > just
> > > >once, but it wasn't stable.  I've also had issues with the router vm
> > > >coming
> > > >up on local storage.. go figure.
> > > >  I'm curious to see if anyone is actually using local storage with
> > > >multiple hosts and/or hypervisors.   Either way, things seem to work
> > much
> > > >better when local storage is not enabled.  I should be done with a
> > new
> > > >setup without local storage, we'll see how that turns out.
> > > >
> > > >-Alex
> > > >
> > > >On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Tamas Monos <tamasm@veber.co.uk>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >> Have you tried the solution for your local storage issue that
> > 'gemiller'
> > > >> suggested in that thread you have opened?
> > > >> There is no problem enabling local storage. The reason it is not
> > working
> > > >> with your setup because you not seem to have a Service Offering to
> > use
> > > >> local storage just default ones which are for shared I guess.
> > > >>
> > > >> CS is not a walk in the park from the admin point of view.
> > Especially
> > > >>for
> > > >> first timers so if you just started using it I'd highly recommend
> > > >>spending
> > > >> time more understanding it at the beginning before trying to do
> > > >>something
> > > >> that you think or feel should work because it might not.
> > > >>
> > > >> Regards
> > > >>
> > > >> Tamas Monos                                               DDI
> > > >> +44(0)2034687012
> > > >> Chief Technical                                             Office
> > > >> +44(0)2034687000
> > > >> Veber: The Hosting Specialists               Fax         +44(0)871
> > 522
> > > >> 7057
> > > >> http://www.veber.co.uk
> > > >>
> > > >> Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost
> > > >> Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> -----Original Message-----
> > > >> From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> > > >> Sent: 22 June 2012 13:40
> > > >> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> > > >>
> > > >> Hi,
> > > >>
> > > >>  I'm starting over again with a new setup, taking into account
> > what's
> > > >> worked (and not) before.  So, things were actually ok with just
> > NFS
> > > >>storage
> > > >> and XenServer before.  Then I enabled local storage and added a
> > KVM
> > > >> cluster.  It completely broke everything, and by broke, I mean CS3
> > would
> > > >> spit out blank errors all over the place, could not launch VM's,
> > etc.  I
> > > >> was pretty frustrated at that point and blew it away.  I've gotten
> > > >>pretty
> > > >> good/quick and blowing away and re-installing CS (and all the
> > > >>hypervisors).
> > > >>  One such issue I had previously:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > http://cloudstack.org/forum/5-installation/11379-losing-all-hope-
> > primary-
> > > >>storage-either-local-or-nfs-does-not-work.html
> > > >> (with a link to a previous issue I had).
> > > >>
> > > >> My new(ish) plan right now is this.  I installed ESXi, but reading
> > the
> > > >>CS
> > > >> docs regarding it, decided against using it.  I've now re-
> > installed all
> > > >>my
> > > >> hypervisors in such a manner that I shouldn't need to rely on
> > local
> > > >> storage.   Before, I had hacked XenServer to export it's local
> > storage
> > > >>via
> > > >> nfs.. that was problematic to say the least.  Here's my latest
> > attempt
> > > >> which I believe will now work:
> > > >>
> > > >> 1. KVM (Centos 6.2) hypervisor with 1TB local disks.  800GB
> > exported as
> > > >> NFS primary storage back for KVM use.
> > > >> 2. XenServer 6.02.  Primary on local lan NFS nas.
> > > >> 3. secondary storage on same NFS nas as a different mount.
> > > >>
> > > >> Without enabling local storage, I think this would work, as I now
> > > >>realize
> > > >> practically all of my issues came about when I enabled local
> > storage.
> > > >>  Disabling local storage once enabled is also not possible...
> > > >>
> > > >> Thanks,
> > > >> Alex
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >> On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Tamas Monos <tamasm@veber.co.uk>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >> > Hi,
> > > >> >
> > > >> > I'm using CS 3.0.2 with vSphere 4.1 update1 (paid ESX not ESXi).
> > > >> > I have a single cluster with two nodes and shared ISCSI storage
> > and
> > > >> > very happy with it.
> > > >> > Personally would recommend against local storage as I have
> > noticed
> > > >> > vmware can be very slow using its local hard drive for VM
> > storage as
> > > >> > many VM chewing the same disk is painful.
> > > >> > Also you will not have failover without a shared storage.
> > > >> > Even if you are tight on budget you could put together an NFS
or
> > ISCSI
> > > >> > server with a 10-15 disk raid.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Could you let us know what do you mean "that really seems to
> > mess it
> > > >> > up, is enabling local storage. This tends to just make things
> > horribly
> > > >> > unstable"? Or point me to the bugs you are referring to?
> > > >> > What is unstable? Do you get exceptions? Can't you deploy VMs?
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Regards
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Tamas Monos                                               DDI
> > > >> > +44(0)2034687012
> > > >> > Chief Technical
> > Office
> > > >> > +44(0)2034687000
> > > >> > Veber: The Hosting Specialists               Fax
> > +44(0)871 522
> > > >> > 7057
> > > >> > http://www.veber.co.uk
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us on
> > > Facebook:
> > > >> > www.facebook.com/veberhost
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >> > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> > > >> > Sent: 22 June 2012 11:30
> > > >> > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Hi Tamas,
> > > >> >
> > > >> >   I'm probably stuck with 3.0.2 for now since I decided to use
> > vSphere
> > > >> > 5 (instead of the KVM install I just had).  Many of the issues
> > I've
> > > >> > had are actually documented bugs, but since the project is
> > somewhat in
> > > >> limbo I
> > > >> > don't know how long we have to wait.   I've been installing and
> > > >> > re-installing in different configs CS 3.0.2 for about a week
now,
> > and
> > > >> > finally got it to a sweet spot where it would run just fine with
> > a
> > > >> > single hypervisor.
> > > >> >  One of the things that really seems to mess it up, is enabling
> > local
> > > >> > storage.   This tends to just make things horribly unstable.
  I
> > just
> > > >> blew
> > > >> > away my current setup of XenServer+KVM and am going to do
> > another
> > > >> > attempt (But with XenServer and vSphere) with local storage
> > (since
> > > >> > both are purported to support local storage).
> > > >> >  I'm sure 3.0.2 runs just fine once it's setup and it's working,
> > but I
> > > >> > just find it very disturbing that one small change can throw
the
> > whole
> > > >> > system.  I'd be very worried in using it production.
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Thanks,
> > > >> > Alex
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tamas Monos
> > <tamasm@veber.co.uk>
> > > >>wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > I think 3.0.2 is not pre-alpha by far. I can easily run
a
> > production
> > > >> > > environment on it with billing integration and customers
are
> > happy.
> > > >> > > Nothing is perfect ever but there is always a workaround.
If
> > you
> > > >> > > could describe what is unusable or blows up we might be
able
> > to
> > > >>help.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Regards
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Tamas Monos                                            
  DDI
> > > >> > > +44(0)2034687012
> > > >> > > Chief Technical
> > Office
> > > >> > > +44(0)2034687000
> > > >> > > Veber: The Hosting Specialists               Fax
> > +44(0)871
> > > >>522
> > > >> > > 7057
> > > >> > > http://www.veber.co.uk
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us
on
> > > >>Facebook:
> > > >> > > www.facebook.com/veberhost
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> > > >> > > Sent: 22 June 2012 02:33
> > > >> > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > That's a funny place for it to show up, imho.  It's a system
> > vm.
> > > >> > > I'm pretty sure when I was using the Xen hypervisor it was
> > showing
> > > >> > > up under system vm's.  Then again, the 3.x branch is so
pre-
> > alpha I
> > > >> > > don't know where stuff will show up anymore.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Any news on when the incubator project is going to be ramped
> > up?
> > > >> > > 3.0.2 is essentially unusable.  Just adding another hypervisor
> > to
> > > >> > > the mix causes it to blow up.  I did notice a ton of bug
fixes,
> > but
> > > >> > > those won't show up in any builds till the incubator project
> > is up
> > > >> > > and running
> > > >> > I'm guessing.
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Alex
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Edison Su
> > <Edison.su@citrix.com>
> > > >> wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > >> > > > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzilber@gmail.com]
> > > >> > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:14 PM
> > > >> > > > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org
> > > >> > > > > Subject: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system
vm.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Hi All,
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >   This looks like a bug in CS 3.0.2.  I did a
clean
> > install.
> > > >> > > > > Everything is
> > > >> > > > > on Centos 6.2.  Installed KVM as the first hypervisor
in
> > the
> > > >> cluster.
> > > >> > > > >  Launched an instance.  virsh reports:
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > [root@kvm1 init.d]# virsh list
> > > >> > > > >  Id Name                 State
> > > >> > > > > ----------------------------------
> > > >> > > > >   1 s-1-VM               running
> > > >> > > > >   2 v-2-VM               running
> > > >> > > > >  * 3 r-4-VM               running*
> > > >> > > > >   4 i-2-3-VM             running
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > #3 above is the system router vm.  It does not
show up
> > under
> > > >> > > > > 'system vm'
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > Router VM should not be shown up under "system vm".
It
> > should be
> > > >> > > > under "zone->network->"
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > > > > under the Zones. (#1 and #2 do).   This is concerning
> > because
> > > >>when
> > > >> I
> > > >> > > > > used
> > > >> > > > > Xen, it reported it correctly.
> > > >> > > > >
> > > >> > > > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > > > Alex
> > > >> > > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> >
> > > >> >
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > >
>

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