On 9 Apr 2019, at 13:05, Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:

Looks like this will take a while either we'll drop safelease or port the code to use it on RHEL 8.
In the meanwhile, pushed https://gerrit.ovirt.org/99293 allowing to continue pre-integration testing

but why not just build safelease for rhel 8 for now? it’s a plain C app without any dependency, so it should be a trivial rebuild
I would rather avoid breaking stuff this early without a clear plan and commitment to fix it in time. It’s easy to forget and then we’ll end up with serious gap in functionality and/or the upgrade flow

Thanks,
michal



Il giorno lun 8 apr 2019 alle ore 10:34 Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> ha scritto:


On 7 Apr 2019, at 13:41, Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:



On Sun, Apr 7, 2019, 14:34 Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:


On Fri, Apr 5, 2019 at 8:33 PM Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> wrote:


On 5 Apr 2019, at 09:31, Martin Tessun <mtessun@redhat.com> wrote:

Hi Sandro, Michal,

On 4/5/19 9:01 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:


Il giorno gio 4 apr 2019 alle ore 19:15 Michal Skrivanek <michal.skrivanek@redhat.com> ha scritto:


On 3 Apr 2019, at 13:24, Martin Perina <mperina@redhat.com> wrote:



On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:22 AM Martin Tessun <mtessun@redhat.com> wrote:
On 4/3/19 8:25 AM, Sandro Bonazzola wrote:
So, according to the thread we have a few action items:
- Decide if we'll drop export domain and iso domain in 4.4

Just please don't forget that 4.4 engine will need to support 4.2, 4.3 and 4.4 hosts and we will need to allow migrating VMs from 4.2/4.3 hosts (EL7) to 4.4 hosts (EL8), so we need to be careful about implications of removing ISO and export data domains

In general we can’t remove anything while the corresponding cluster level is still supported. So feel free to drop anything we used in <4.2, but think twice and (run that through virt team at least) before you remove anything used in 4.2+

Ok, so: do we need to take safelease with us in 4.4? If the answer is yes, I need to request to find a maintainer for it since we'll need to package it for RHEL 8 / CentOS 8.
This is currently blocking pre-integration testing with RHEL 8 Beta so it needs to be addressed quickly in order to be able to proceed.


First question: Up to which clusterlevel is safelease needed? Is it needed in 4.2 cluster level?


Also 4.3

If so: safelease is probably only required on RHEL 7 hypervisors then. In that case we don't need it for RHEL 8 Hypervisors.


If we won’t have it on RHEL 8/4.4 then you are effectively cutting off <4.4 support in 4.4 vdsm. Which also means no live migration between 4.3 compat level which means no way to upgrade to 4.4 with running VMs. 
I do not think that’s acceptable

I think that the suggestion here is not to drop clusterLevel < 4.4; it is to disallow storage pools that have ISO/EXPORT domains attached to them.

and what would happen to those? You could have a lot of data on export domain…that could be very surprising.
So when you start the upgrade you would basically see your new shiny 4.4 host won’t become operational and you’d be presented with a decision to either stop the upgrade or cut off iso/storage domains before continuing.

Theoretically, we could ask our users to first detach their obsolete SDs from the data center, and only then add a 4.4 host.
If a host upgrades to 4.4 while its datacenter still has ISO/EXPORT, the host must become non-operational.

that part is easy.


Sounds like a good plan.


I think that this is something we can both implement in code AND request from users.

it still means the gaps needs to be closed first. We can’t break v2v conversions - as Tomas pointed out earlier we need a way(API) how to get the drivers iso mounted on a conversion host. And get rid of floppies.

Thanks,
michal


So in case we remove safelease from RHV 4.4/RHEL 8 based hypervisors we should be fine.
In case safelease is needed for the engine, we need to think if we want to move the engine to RHEL 8 in that case.


Cheers,
Martin


 


If we do so, we still need a way to clean these old domains up, aka moving the ISOs to a Data Domain or "migrating" an existing ISO domain into a data Domain.
Export Domain is probably easier, as the OVAs can simply be copied to a central location. Maybe having an export domain available as a second way to upload VMs (e.g. for bulk-imports) still makes sense. Esp. as I believe v2v is relying on export domains today.


... or at least provide the documentation for users to do this themselves.

So while I am in favor of getting rid of unneeded code, we need to think about the benefits they both have and how to get them implemented in case we agree on removing the old domains.

So what are the benefits of the ISO domain:

- Easy to add new ISOs (just copy them to the NFS location
- simple way of sharing between DCs/RHV-Ms
- Having a central place for the ISOs

The 3rd item can be achieved by admins simply using one Storage Domain just for ISOs.
The 2nd would probably require some sort of read-only SDs or a way to have one SD shared between DCs with just one DC having write-access.
The 1st one is probably hardest, as there is no easy way of adding data to the Storage Domain without tooling. Maybe there are also other ways of achieving this, the above are just my ideas.


Next - what are the benefits of Export Domain:

- Unattended Import
- Bulk Im- and Export
- Central location
- Easily sharable between DCs/RHV-Ms

The 4th one is already achieved as we have a common Import/Export tool, so the OVAs can be easily shared and used by different DCs/RHV-Ms
The 3rd one is something that could be easily achieved administrately.
The 2nd one is already more complicated, but can probably be solved with Ansible (as the 1st one probably as well).


So from my PoV it is easiest to remove the Export Domain while still having all needed features available. The ISO domain seems a bit harder to me.
Please think about how to solve this, before we decide on removing both of them.


Cheers,
Martin


- Move requirements from safelease to vdsm for numactl, dmidecode and virt-v2v if not already done
- Elect a maintainer for safelease for 4.3 scope
- Deprecate safelease in 4.3 and remove it on master if we agree on removing iso and export domain in 4.4

Il giorno mar 2 apr 2019 alle ore 18:14 Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> ha scritto:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:40 PM Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com> wrote:


On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:07 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
I stumbled upon safelease package, introduced in oVirt 3.6.
I realigned the spec file with Fedora Rawhide: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/99123/
and then I stopped working on it and decided to open a thread here.

safelease package is required in vdsm.
I searched for the home page for this package since it moved and found: https://ovirt.org/develop/developer-guide/vdsm/safelease.html
This says that sanlock is meant to obsolete safelease.
I'm assuming that safelease was used in 3.6 and replaced later by sanlock then kept for backward compatibility.
In 4.3 we dropped support for 3.6 level clusters, is this package still needed?

safelease is our clusterlock with V1 storage domains - export and iso domains.

Once we remove these domains we can remove also safelease.

If it's still needed, why is it requiring:
# Numactl is not available on s390[x] and ARM
%ifnarch s390 s390x %{arm}
Requires: numactl
%endif

%ifarch x86_64
Requires: python2-dmidecode
Requires: dmidecode
Requires: virt-v2v
%endif

These are hacks Yaniv added so we can make vdsm noarch package. Since then we reverted
back to vdsm arch specific package but the bad requirements remained in safelease.

We can safely remove the requirements from safelease if vdsm requires these packages, but
I'm not sure who has time to work on safelease.

I think it is time to remove export and iso domain in 4.4.

Would it be possible?
If an ovirt-4.3 storage pool has an ISO domain, and we add an ovirt-4.4 host to it, we would like it to be able to become SPM.

In rhel 8.1, vdsm 4.4, I don't want to support export or iso domain regardless of the
cluster version.

We don't have the time to port all code in vdsm to python 3. If you want python 3, you need
to remove some features.

If you want to mix 4.4. host with 4.3, env, detach the iso domain and export domain?

Tal, what do you think?


--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA

MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV

sbonazzo@redhat.com   

 


-- 
Martin Tessun
Senior Technical Product Manager KVM, Red Hat GmbH (Munich Office)

mobile  +49.173.6595494
desk    +49.89.205071-107
fax     +49.89.205071-111

GPG Fingerprint: EDBB 7C6A B5FE 9199 B861  478D 3526 E46D 0D8B 44F0

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Tom Savage, Eric Shander
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4XAIQPAEP655RA4YAYY/


--
Martin Perina
Manager, Software Engineering
Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/GRB2666BFX3OIUMNP6DFUNJQYYOWEWAE/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/45RWPIMLH6MYVUBPOZ6VP3PNWHMWVCCB/


--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA

MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV

sbonazzo@redhat.com   

 


-- 
Martin Tessun
Senior Technical Product Manager KVM, Red Hat GmbH (Munich Office)

mobile  +49.173.6595494
desk    +49.89.205071-107
fax     +49.89.205071-111

GPG Fingerprint: EDBB 7C6A B5FE 9199 B861  478D 3526 E46D 0D8B 44F0

Red Hat GmbH, http://www.de.redhat.com/ Registered seat: Grasbrunn,
Commercial register: Amtsgericht Muenchen, HRB 153243,
Managing Directors: Charles Cachera, Michael O'Neill, Tom Savage, Eric Shander
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/GVQCEPGMK5BNC623564DBGQV7NEVQNWP/
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/WCN6UE25YXDZLHCI26FJA34KG3Z6Q4OA/

_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org
Privacy Statement: https://www.ovirt.org/site/privacy-policy/
oVirt Code of Conduct: https://www.ovirt.org/community/about/community-guidelines/
List Archives: https://lists.ovirt.org/archives/list/devel@ovirt.org/message/WQPWH3ZB7IKECWYJBWUE4IVUMH3GSSW2/


--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA

MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV

sbonazzo@redhat.com