Sounds like your disk definition is not using virtio-block. In this case
you wouldnt be able to hot attach either though. Can you paste the diskdef
XML? This would normally only happen if you used a template defined with an
older OS, like the default centos 5.5 or "other Linux" instead of "other
Linux PV". In those cases I think it emulates IDE, which can't be
hotswapped.
On Oct 25, 2013 10:05 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
wrote:
> Hey Marcus,
>
> I've been running all sorts of tests today and just noticed one issue.
>
> When I have a disk attached and reset (not reboot) the VM, the VM comes up
> just fine.
>
> If I then try to detach the disk, I get the following error:
>
> com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Failed to detach volume:
> Vol-6 from VM: VM-KVM-1; org.libvirt.LibvirtException: unsupported
> configuration: This type of disk cannot be hot unplugged
>
> Normally I have no problem detaching a disk. Once I get into this state;
> however, I seem to be stuck with an attached disk.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Thanks
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:58 AM, Mike Tutkowski <
> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>
>> Excellent - thanks!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:10 AM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> tests passed with latest commit hash you sent.
>>>
>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:10 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> > Just playing around with this on XenServer now.
>>> >
>>> > When I stop a VM, XenCenter no longer shows the VM (i.e. it behaves
>>> like VMM
>>> > does when a VM is stopped).
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 9:53 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Oct 24, 2013 7:39 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" <
>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But what happens when, say, XenServer crashes and knows about VMs
>>> it had
>>> >> > running before it crashed?
>>> >>
>>> >> Not sure what XenCenter does but I thought it would/could start them
>>> on
>>> >> other nodes.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > I guess I was thinking you meant that CS purposefully creates VMs
>>> on KVM
>>> >> > in such a fashion that KVM will not remember them in the event of a
>>> crash.
>>> >>
>>> >> You're right about that, you get what I mean. Its done since there's
>>> no
>>> >> central manager and it causes problems for each host to keep a local
>>> config.
>>> >> I meant that CS doesn't necessarily tell the other hypervisors to
>>> remember,
>>> >> per se. They just do because its working through a cluster manager and
>>> >> that's what they do.
>>> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Marcus Sorensen <
>>> shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I just mean that they're still visible on those platforms because
>>> >> >> they're being tracked by some central source outside of cloudstack.
>>> >> >> Cloudstack itself I don't think cares, it just manages the
>>> resources as it
>>> >> >> sees in ITs database. I don't really see it as cloudstack treating
>>> KVM
>>> >> >> differently, rather just KVM lacking a central authority or
>>> cluster manager.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Oct 24, 2013 7:19 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>> >> >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> So, I guess the moral is CloudStack has KVM treat VMs
>>> ephemerally, but
>>> >> >>> we (you and I) don't know how CS has XenServer and VMware treat
>>> VMs.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> I plan to do some testing with XenServer and VMware in a bit, so
>>> I can
>>> >> >>> stop a VM and see if it remains visible in their GUIs.
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:17 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> My guess is XenCenter gets info about stopped VMs from the
>>> XenServer
>>> >> >>>> hosts it logs in to. I don't think it maintains a DB like
>>> vCenter does.
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:15 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> Actually, I don't know if XenCenter remembers the VMs per se or
>>> if
>>> >> >>>>> it gets that information from querying the XenServer hosts it
>>> has access to.
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:14 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> No, it does allow you to do that. I wasn't sure what you meant
>>> by
>>> >> >>>>>> your comparison, but XenCenter does remember VMs as far as I
>>> know.
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 7:08 PM, Marcus Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> Oh, xencenter doesn't remember VMS and allow you to start one
>>> if
>>> >> >>>>>>> the host it was on is down? I haven't played with it in a
>>> year but I thought
>>> >> >>>>>>> it synced with each xen server.
>>> >> >>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2013 7:06 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>> >> >>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> Well...XenCenter is "just" the GUI (like VI Client is for
>>> >> >>>>>>>> vSphere). As far as I know, XenServer has no equivalent to
>>> vCenter Server.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Marcus Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> That is probably true, but there is no xencenter or vsphere
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> equivalent for KVM, no central authority. Its cloudstack.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2013 6:22 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>> >> >>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> OK, thanks for that info, Marcus...I was not aware that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> CloudStack treated VMs ephemerally with KVM.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> I guess I should try to stop a VM on XenServer and ESX and
>>> see
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> what happens. I was under the impression they remained
>>> accessible using
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> XenCenter or VI Client, but perhaps I am wrong about that.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Since my KVM VM's root disk was on local storage, I
>>> expected it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> to remain accessible in VMM after I had stopped it via CS.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 6:16 PM, Marcus Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> Are you talking cloudstack VMS or your own? If a vm is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> 'created' it is ephemeral, the definition will disappear
>>> when stopped. This
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> is what cloudstack does so that a KVM host that crashes
>>> or loses power won't
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> remember and try to start VMS that were previously on it
>>> (they are likely
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> running elsewhere now). However, for your desktop and
>>> your own VMS you
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> usually 'define' VMS, which saves the XML to a file and
>>> leaves them
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> persistent. I use vmm occasionally, but usually virsh,
>>> the CLI version. Both
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> just talk to libvirt.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 24, 2013 6:08 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Marcus,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I assume you use Virtual Machine Manager with KVM?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> I was wondering, is there a way when you stop a VM to
>>> have it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> not disappear from the GUI?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> In XenCenter and VI Client, stopped VMs just show up
>>> with a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> different icon, but are still easy to interact with.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Also, the way I determined if the attach/detach worked
>>> was
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> to use fdisk -l and see if the device was present or
>>> not in the hypervisor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> and VM instance.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:42 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Here are some of the tests I ran on this code:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> attach/detach/attach volume while VM is running: works
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume attached while VM is running, then reboot: works
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume attached while VM is running, then reset: works
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume detached while VM is stopped, then start: works
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> volume attached while VM is stopped, then start: works
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> deleted VM with attached volume: works (volume goes
>>> into
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the attachable state after VM is expunged)
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:40 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> By the way, in case you're looking at the diff and
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wondering why I took out a StopCommand check and call
>>> to execute in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> LibvirtComputingResource, there were two of them.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - } else if (cmd instanceof StopCommand) {
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - return execute((StopCommand) cmd);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:26 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is a newer link, Marcus:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/mike-tutkowski/incubator-cloudstack/commit/e84de7577ad38fea88d1492d4949672d1989889b
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I just rebased on top of master today.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hey Marcus,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you're interested in running the simulator
>>> against
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your code + my code, I have it on GitHub here:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> https://github.com/mike-tutkowski/incubator-cloudstack/commit/776f3eb9dda45745f43e6765b026d34fbc6be072
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm trying to attach my diff to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> https://reviews.apache.org/r/13865/, but I don't
>>> see the necessary buttons.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I wonder if I need to get edit access back again?
>>> We
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had trouble with the Wiki. Was this also impacted?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:47 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I can create a diff file and attach it to
>>> Review
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Board.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:40 PM, Marcus Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Sure. The majority of it only affects people who
>>> are
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on your storage
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway. Perhaps you can post a patch and I can
>>> run it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> through the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simulator to verify that the minor change to the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> existing code hasn't
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> broken the standard storages. I don't think it is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since I've
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thoroughly tested the code I posted, but I know
>>> there
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> were some
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> additional changes.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:35 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > OK, Marcus, I made the change to detect my
>>> volumes
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > and it seems to work just
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > fine.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > Perhaps another day of testing and we can check
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > this code in. What do you
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > think?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 9:14 PM, Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Thanks, Marcus...I hadn't read that note, but
>>> that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> makes sense.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> Yes, that must be the root disk for the VM. I
>>> can
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> put in code, as you
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> recommend, to handle only my volumes.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Marcus
>>> Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> It should be sending the path info for each
>>> disk
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> per the XML of the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> VM... so it will send all disks regardless of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> whether or not your
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> adaptor manages that disk, and it's up to
>>> your
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> adaptor to ignore any
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that aren't managed by it. There should be
>>> notes
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> to that effect in the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> code near the disconnectPhysicalDisk
>>> interface in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> StorageAdaptor:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> // given local path to file/device (per
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Libvirt XML), 1) check
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> that device is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> // handled by your adaptor, return false
>>> if
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> not. 2) clean up
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> device, return true
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> public boolean
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> disconnectPhysicalDiskByPath(String
>>> localPath);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> Since we only have XML disk definitions when
>>> we
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> stop or migrate a VM,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> we have to try all adaptors against all
>>> defined
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> disks. So in your
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> disconnectPhysicalDisk you might do something
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> like check that the path
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> starts with '/dev/disk/by-path' and contains
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> 'iscs-iqn' (maybe there's
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> some way that's more robust like checking the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> full path against a lun
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> listing or something). If it doesn't match,
>>> then
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> your
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> disconnectPhysicalDisk just does nothing.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> I assume this is a root disk or some other
>>> local
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> storage disk. If it's
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> not, then your VM XML is messed up somehow.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 5:01 PM, Mike
>>> Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > I found the problem.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > disconnectPhysicalDiskByPath is being
>>> passed in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > (in my situation) the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > following:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> /var/lib/libvirt/images/9887d511-8dc7-4cb4-96f9-01230fe4bbb6
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > Due to the name of the method, my code was
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > expecting data such as the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > following:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> /dev/disk/by-path/ip-192.168.233.10:3260-iscsi-iqn.2012-03.com.solidfire:volume1-lun-0
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > Was it intentional to send the data into
>>> this
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > method in the current
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > way?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Mike
>>> Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> > <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> You know, I forgot we supposed to be doing
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> that! :) Multi-tasking too
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> much
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> today, I guess.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> Anyways, it must not be working because I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> still had a hypervisor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> connection after I shut down the VM.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> Let me investigate.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Marcus
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> Are we not disconnecting when we stop
>>> the vm?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> There's a method for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> it, we
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> should be.
>>> disconnectPhysicalDiskViaVmSpec
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> On Oct 23, 2013 1:28 PM, "Mike Tutkowski"
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> I see one problem for us now, Marcus.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> * You have a running VM that you attach
>>> a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> volume to.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> * You stop the VM.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> * You detach the volume.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> * You start up the VM.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> The VM will not be connected to the
>>> volume
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> (which is good), but the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> hypervisor will still be connected to
>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> volume.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> It would be great if we actually sent a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> command to the last host ID
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> the stopped VM when detaching a volume
>>> (to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> have the hypervisor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> disconnect
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> from the volume).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> What do you think about that?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 1:15 PM, Mike
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> OK, whatever way you prefer then,
>>> Marcus
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> (createVdb first or
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> second).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> If I leave createVdb first and return
>>> 0, it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> does seem to work.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 11:13 AM,
>>> Marcus
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I think we could flip-flop these two
>>> lines
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> if necessary:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> createVbd(conn, vmSpec,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> vmName, vm);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> _storagePoolMgr.connectPhysicalDisksViaVmSpec(vmSpec);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> I haven't actually tried it though.
>>> But in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> general I don't see the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Libvirt DiskDef using size at all,
>>> which
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> is what createVbd does
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> (creates XML definitions for disks to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> attach to the VM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> definition). It
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> just takes the device at it's native
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> advertised size when it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> actually
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> goes to use it.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> On Wed, Oct 23, 2013 at 10:52 AM, Mike
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > Little problem that I wanted to get
>>> your
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > take on, Marcus.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > When a VM is being started, we call
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > createVdb before calling
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > connectPhysicalDisksViaVmSpec.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > The problem is that createVdb calls
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > getPhysicalDisk and my
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > volume
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > has not
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > yet been connected because
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > connectPhysicalDisksViaVmSpec has
>>> not
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > yet
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > been
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > called.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > When I try to read up the size of
>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > disk to populate a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > PhysicalDisk, I get
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > an error, of course, because the
>>> path
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > does not yet exist.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > I could populate a 0 for the size
>>> of the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > physical disk and then
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > next
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > time getPhysicalDisk is called, it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > should be filled in with a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > proper
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > size.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > Do you see a problem with that
>>> approach?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 6:40 PM,
>>> Marcus
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> That's right. All should be well.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> On Oct 22, 2013 6:03 PM, "Mike
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> Tutkowski"
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Looks like we disconnect physical
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> disks when the VM is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> stopped.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I didn't see that before.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> I suppose that means the disks are
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> physically disconnected
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> when
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> the VM is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> stopped, but the CloudStack DB
>>> still
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> has the VM associated
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> with
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> the disks
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> for the next time the VM may be
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> started up (unless someone
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> does a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> disconnect
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> while the VM is in the Stopped
>>> State).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> On Tue, Oct 22, 2013 at 4:19 PM,
>>> Mike
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Hey Marcus,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Quick question for you related to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> attaching/detaching volumes
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> when the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> VM is in the Stopped State.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> If I detach a volume from a VM
>>> that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> is in the Stopped State,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> DB
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> seems to get updated, but I
>>> don't see
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> a command going to the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> KVM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> hypervisor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> that leads to the removal of the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> iSCSI target.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> It seems the iSCSI target is only
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> removed the next time the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> VM is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> started.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Do you know if this is true?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> If it is, I'm concerned that the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> volume could be attached to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> another VM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> before the Stopped VM is
>>> re-started
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> and when the Stopped VM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> gets
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> restarted
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> that it would disconnect the
>>> iSCSI
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> volume from underneath the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> VM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> that now
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> has the volume attached.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> I still want to perform some
>>> tests on
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> this, but am first
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> trying
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> to get a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> VM to start after I've attached a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> volume to it when it was in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Stopped
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> State.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Thanks,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Mike
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:57 PM,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks for that info, Marcus.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> By the way, I wanted to see if I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> could attach my volume to a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> VM
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> in the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Stopped State.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> The attach logic didn't trigger
>>> any
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> exceptions; however,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> when I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> started
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> the VM, I received an
>>> Insufficient
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Capacity exception.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> If I detach the volume and then
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> start the VM, the VM starts
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> just
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> fine.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> I noticed a problem here (in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> StoragePoolHostDaoImpl):
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> @Override
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> public StoragePoolHostVO
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> findByPoolHost(long poolId,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> long
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> hostId) {
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> SearchCriteria<StoragePoolHostVO> sc =
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> PoolHostSearch.create();
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> sc.setParameters("pool_id",
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> poolId);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> sc.setParameters("host_id",
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> hostId);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> return
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> findOneIncludingRemovedBy(sc);
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> }
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> The findOneIncludingRemovedBy
>>> method
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> returns null (the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> poolId is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> my
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> storage pool's ID and the
>>> hostId is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> the expected host ID).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> I'm not sure what this method is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> trying to do.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> I looked in the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> storage_pool_host_ref table (is
>>> that the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> correct
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> table?) and it only has one row,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> which maps the local
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> storage
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> pool of the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> KVM host to the KVM host (which
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> explains why no match is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> found
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> for my
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> situation).
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Do you understand what this
>>> logic is
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> trying to do?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Thanks!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:08 PM,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> Marcus Sorensen
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> <shadow...@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you have the capability to
>>> clone
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the root disk? Normally
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> template is installed to
>>> primary,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and then cloned for each
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> root
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> disk.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In some cases (such as CLVM),
>>> this
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> isn't efficient and so
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> template
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> is copied fresh to populate
>>> each
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> root disk.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm actually not 100% sure how
>>> this
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> works in the new code.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> used to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> be handled by copyPhysicalDisk
>>> in
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the storage adaptor,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> called
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> by
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> copyTemplateToPrimaryStorage,
>>> which
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> runs on the agent. It
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> would
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> pass
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> template/secondary storage
>>> info,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> and the destination
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> volume/primary
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> storage info, and
>>> copyPhysicalDisk
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> would do the work of
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> installing the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> image to the destination. Then
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> subsequent root disks would
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> be
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> cloned
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in CreateCommand by calling
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> createDiskFromTemplate.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In master it looks like this
>>> was
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> moved to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> KVMStorageProcessor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 'cloneVolumeFromBaseTemplate',
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> although I think this just
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> takes
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> over
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> as default, and there's
>>> something
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in your storage driver
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> that
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> should
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> be capable of cloning
>>> templates on
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> the mgmt server side.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> less sure
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> about how the template gets to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> primary storage in the first
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> place, I
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> assume
>>> copyTemplateToPrimaryStorage
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> in KVMStorageProcessor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> calling
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> copyPhysicalDisk in your
>>> adaptor.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It's a bit tough for me
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> to
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> tell
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> since our earlier storage
>>> adaptor
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> did everything on the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> host it
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> mostly
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> just worked with the default
>>> stuff.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 4:49
>>> PM,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> <mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Hey Marcus,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > So...now that this works
>>> well for
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > data disks, I was
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > wondering
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > what
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > might be
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > involved in getting this
>>> process
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > to work for root disks.
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Can you point me in the right
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > direction as far as what
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > gets
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > invoked
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > when a
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > VM is being created on KVM
>>> (so
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > that its root disk can be
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > created and
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > the
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > necessary template laid down
>>> or
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > ISO installed)?
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Thanks!
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 1:14
>>> PM,
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > Mike Tutkowski
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > <
>>> mike.tutkow...@solidfire.com>
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>> >>
>>>
>> ...
