incubator-cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Devdeep Singh <devdeep.si...@citrix.com>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Enabling storage xenmotion on xenserver 6.1
Date Thu, 20 Dec 2012 12:33:13 GMT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:Abhinandan.Prateek@citrix.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:20 PM
> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enabling storage xenmotion on xenserver 6.1
> 
> 
> 
> On 19/12/12 12:13 PM, "Devdeep Singh" <devdeep.singh@citrix.com>
> wrote:
> 
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.childers@sungard.com]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:07 PM
> >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org
> >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enabling storage xenmotion on xenserver 6.1
> >>
> >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Devdeep Singh
> >> <devdeep.singh@citrix.com> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > XenServer introduced support for Storage XenMotion in the latest
> >>version
> >> (6.1). Storage XenMotion allows VMs to be moved from one host to
> >>another,  where the VMs are not located on storage shared between the
> >>two hosts.
> >>It
> >> provides the option to live migrate a VM's disks along with the VM
> >>itself. It is  now possible to migrate a VM from one resource pool to
> >>another, or to  migrate a VM whose disks are on local storage, or even
> >>to migrate a VM's disks  from one storage repository to another, all
> >>while the VM is running.
> >>More
> >> information on Storage XenMotion can be found at [1].
> >> >
> >> > I have filed a jira request [2] to track this feature. I plan to
> >>extend the
> >> migrate vm cloudstack api call to allow migration of instances across
> >>clusters.
> >> Do let me know your comments.
> >> >
> >> > [1] http://blogs.citrix.com/2012/08/24/storage_xenmotion/
> >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-659
> >> >
> >> > Regards,
> >> > Devdeep
> >> >
> >>
> >> +1 to this feature.
> >>
> >> Do you have thoughts on how the API call respond when the underlying
> >> hypervisor doesn't support this feature?
> >
> >My thinking was to fail that operation with a message saying that it
> >requires storage motion and the hypervisor doesn't support it. One way
> >would be for cloudstack to check if moving the instance/vm to a new
> >host requires moving its storage. If so and the underlying hypervisor
> >doesn't support it, cloudstack could fail the migration request.
> >
> >Regards,
> >Devdeep
> 
> Instead of failing the migration request can't we warn the initiator that the VM
> will be stopped and migrated ?
> It will be known before hand as to what Hypervisor do not support live
> migration.
> -abhi
> >

If the hypervisor doesn't support it, shouldn't we just fail the request with a proper message.
The user/admin can shutdown the vm and then move/migrate it. The behavior would be similar
to how cloudstack currently lets the VM volumes be migrated to another storage pool.

Regards,
Devdeep


Mime
View raw message