>> Thanks for the clarification, is there a bug tracking this in libvirt
>> already?
> Actually I don't think there is one, so feel free to file one
I took the liberty of doing so:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208588
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:59:19AM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
> > > > Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good
> > solution
> > > > currently
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
> > > Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good
> solution
> > > currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared
> storage.
> > >
>
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
> > Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good solution
> > currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared storage.
> >
> > I'm curious what Daniel meant by saying that marking the disk shareabl
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
> > > I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes
> > are
> > > attached to
> Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good solution
> currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared storage.
>
> I'm curious what Daniel meant by saying that marking the disk shareable is
> not
> as reliable as we would want.
I think this is the bug I
On 03/17/2015 02:33 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
Digging up this old thread because I am working on getting multi node live
migration testing working (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165182/), and just
ran into this issue (bug 1398999).
And I am not sure I agree with this statement. I think there is
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange
wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
> > I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes
> are
> > attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
> > behavior recen
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> On 19 June 2014 at 20:38, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> > On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
> >> I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
> >> attached to an instance be
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
> Just ran across this from bug
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1398999. Is there some way to
> signal to libvirt that some block devices shouldn't be migrated by it
> but instead are known to be networked etc? Or put another w
On 19 June 2014 at 20:38, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
>> I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
>> attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
>> behavior recently, whereby
t;
> ,
> Date: 19/06/2014 11:42 AM
> Subject:Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Block migrations and
> Cinder volumes
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
>> I am concerned abo
- the use case could be storage
evacuation, or just moving the data to a different box.
Ronen,
From: "Daniel P. Berrange"
To: "OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)"
,
Date: 19/06/2014 11:42 AM
Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvi
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
> I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
> attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
> behavior recently, whereby attached generic NFS-based volumes would become
> entirely
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
behavior recently, whereby attached generic NFS-based volumes would become
entirely unsparse over the course of a migration. After spending some time
revie
15 matches
Mail list logo
