cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ahmad Emneina <Ahmad.Emne...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm.
Date Fri, 22 Jun 2012 18:31:34 GMT
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
View raw message