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 <aha...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 11:41 AM, Alex K <rightkickt...@gmail.com> 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 restarted to another >> host. >> When connecting back the host A, the cluster performed a power management >> and the host became a member of the cluster. >> The VMs that were running on the host A were found "paused", which is >> normal. >> After 15 minutes I see that the VMs at host A are still in "paused" state >> and I would expect that the cluster should decide at some point to shutdown >> the paused VMs and continue with the VMs that are already running at other >> hosts. >> >> Is this behavior normal? >> > > I believe it is not the expected behavior - the VM should not stay in > paused state when its lease expires. But we know about this, see comment 9 > in [1]. > > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1459865 > > >> >> Thanx, >> Alex >> >> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 10:18 AM, Alex K <rightkickt...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> 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 <yk...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Sep 19, 2017 at 1:00 AM, Alex K <rightkickt...@gmail.com> >>>> 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" <rightkickt...@gmail.com> 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) with hosted engine in self hosted setup on >>>>> top gluster with replica 3 + 1 arbiter. All good except one point: >>>>> >>>>> The hosts have been configured with power management using IPMI >>>>> (server iLO). >>>>> If I disconnect power from one host (say C) (or disconnect all network >>>>> cables of the host) the two other hosts go to a loop where they try to >>>>> verify the status of the host C by issuing power management commands to >>>>> the >>>>> host C. Since power of host is off the server iLO does not respond on the >>>>> network and the power management of host C fails, leaving the VMs that >>>>> were >>>>> running on the host C in an unknown state and they are never restarted to >>>>> the other hosts. >>>>> >>>>> Is there any fencing option to change this behavior so as if both >>>>> available hosts fail to do power management of the unresponsive host to >>>>> decide that the host is down and to restart the VMs of that host to the >>>>> other available hosts. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> No, this is a bad assumption. Perhaps they are the ones isolated form >>>> it? >>>> Y. >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I could also add additional power management through UPS to avoid this >>>>> issue but this is not currently an option and I am interested to see if >>>>> this behavior can be tweaked. >>>>> >>>>> Thanx, >>>>> Alex >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Users mailing list >>>>> Users@ovirt.org >>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Users mailing list >> Users@ovirt.org >> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users >> >> >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@ovirt.org http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
