On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 3:27 PM, Alex K wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Arik Hadas wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Alex K wrote:
>>
>>> A second test did not yield the same result.
>>> This time the VMs were restarted to another host and when the lost host
>>> recover
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 2:26 PM, Arik Hadas wrote:
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Alex K wrote:
>
>> A second test did not yield the same result.
>> This time the VMs were restarted to another host and when the lost host
>> recovered no VMs were running on it.
>> Seems that there is a rac
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 12:44 PM, Alex K wrote:
> A second test did not yield the same result.
> This time the VMs were restarted to another host and when the lost host
> recovered no VMs were running on it.
> Seems that there is a racing issue somewhere.
>
Did you test with the same VM? were th
A second test did not yield the same result.
This time the VMs were restarted to another host and when the lost host
recovered no VMs were running on it.
Seems that there is a racing issue somewhere.
Thanx,
Alex
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Arik Hadas wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Alex K wrote:
> Hi again,
>
> I performed a different test by isolating one host (say host A) through
> removing all its network interfaces (thus power management through IPMI was
> also not avaialble).
> The VMs (with VM lease enabled) were successfully restarte
Hi again,
I performed a different test by isolating one host (say host A) through
removing all its network interfaces (thus power management through IPMI was
also not avaialble).
The VMs (with VM lease enabled) were successfully restarted to another
host.
When connecting back the host A, the clust
Hi All,
Just completed the tests and it works great.
VM leases is just what I needed.
Thanx,
Alex
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:16 AM, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Alex K wrote:
>
>> Enabling VM leases could be an answer to this. Will test tomorrow.
>>
>>
> Indeed. Le
On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Alex K wrote:
> Enabling VM leases could be an answer to this. Will test tomorrow.
>
>
Indeed. Let us know how it worked for you.
> Thanx,
> Alex
>
> On Sep 18, 2017 7:50 PM, "Alex K" wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have the following issue with the HA behavior of oVi
Alex is correct. This is what the storage lease feature was designed for.
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 6:00 PM Alex K wrote:
> Enabling VM leases could be an answer to this. Will test tomorrow.
>
> Thanx,
> Alex
>
> On Sep 18, 2017 7:50 PM, "Alex K" wrote:
>
> Hi All,
>
> I have the following issue
Enabling VM leases could be an answer to this. Will test tomorrow.
Thanx,
Alex
On Sep 18, 2017 7:50 PM, "Alex K" wrote:
Hi All,
I have the following issue with the HA behavior of oVirt 4.1 and need to
check with you if there is any work around from your experience.
I have 3 servers (A, B, C)
Hi All,
I have the following issue with the HA behavior of oVirt 4.1 and need to
check with you if there is any work around from your experience.
I have 3 servers (A, B, C) with hosted engine in self hosted setup on top
gluster with replica 3 + 1 arbiter. All good except one point:
The hosts hav
11 matches
Mail list logo
