cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Rene Moser <m...@renemoser.net>
Subject Re: [DISCUSS][PROPOSAL]missing power state reports from hypervisors on VMs ([BLOCKER]?)
Date Wed, 16 Sep 2015 09:18:42 GMT

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


Mime
View raw message