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? 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 while nothing of above packages seems to be used within the source code of this package? Currently listed maintainers for this package are: Saggi Mizrahi (doesn't seems to be in oVirt project anymore) Yaniv Bronhaim (doesn't seems to be in oVirt project anymore) Yoav Kleinberger (doesn't seems to be in oVirt project anymore) Any thought? -- SANDRO BONAZZOLA MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
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. https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320 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. Nir
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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.
Nir
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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?
So, according to the thread we have a few action items: - Decide if we'll drop export domain and iso domain in 4.4 - 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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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 Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
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
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. 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 <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> ha scritto:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:40 PM Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com <mailto:danken@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:07 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com <mailto: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. https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <mailto: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
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
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.
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- 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/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4...
-- Martin Perina Manager, Software Engineering Red Hat Czech s.r.o.
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+
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.
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- 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/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4...
-- 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/GRB2666BFX3OIU...
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.
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.
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- 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/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4...
-- 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/GRB2666BFX3OIU...
_______________________________________________ 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/45RWPIMLH6MYVU...
-- SANDRO BONAZZOLA MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
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 <mailto:michal.skrivanek@redhat.com>> ha scritto:
On 3 Apr 2019, at 13:24, Martin Perina <mperina@redhat.com <mailto:mperina@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Wed, Apr 3, 2019 at 10:22 AM Martin Tessun <mtessun@redhat.com <mailto: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? If so: safelease is probably only required on RHEL 7 hypervisors then. In that case we don't need it for RHEL 8 Hypervisors. 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.
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 <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> ha scritto:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:40 PM Dan Kenigsberg <danken@redhat.com <mailto:danken@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 6:07 PM Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com <mailto:nsoffer@redhat.com>> wrote:
On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 5:00 PM Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo@redhat.com <mailto: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. https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <mailto: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 <mailto:devel@ovirt.org> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org <mailto: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/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4...
-- Martin Perina Manager, Software Engineering Red Hat Czech s.r.o. _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org <mailto:devel@ovirt.org> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org <mailto: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/GRB2666BFX3OIU...
_______________________________________________ Devel mailing list -- devel@ovirt.org <mailto:devel@ovirt.org> To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@ovirt.org <mailto: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/45RWPIMLH6MYVU...
--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA
MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <mailto: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
Il giorno ven 5 apr 2019 alle ore 09:32 Martin Tessun <mtessun@redhat.com> ha scritto:
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? If so: safelease is probably only required on RHEL 7 hypervisors then. In that case we don't need it for RHEL 8 Hypervisors.
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.
It's a VDSM requirement, so it's host side only.
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.
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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- 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/JZZEG5LQLLAGS4...
-- 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/GRB2666BFX3OIU...
_______________________________________________ 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/45RWPIMLH6MYVU...
--
SANDRO BONAZZOLA
MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- 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
-- SANDRO BONAZZOLA MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
Il giorno mer 3 apr 2019 alle ore 08:25 Sandro Bonazzola < sbonazzo@redhat.com> ha scritto:
So, according to the thread we have a few action items: - Decide if we'll drop export domain and iso domain in 4.4 - Move requirements from safelease to vdsm for numactl, dmidecode and virt-v2v if not already done
*Bug 1696313* <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1696313> - Drop unneeded dependencies from safelease *Bug 1696316* <https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1696316> - Add dependencies inherited from safelease to vdsm
- Elect a maintainer for safelease for 4.3 scope
Any volunteer?
- 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.
https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/f433ed5aaf67729b787cf82ee21b0f17af968be4/... https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/blob/master/lib/vdsm/storage/sd.py#L320
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
Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/>
sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
-- SANDRO BONAZZOLA MANAGER, SOFTWARE ENGINEERING, EMEA R&D RHV Red Hat EMEA <https://www.redhat.com/> sbonazzo@redhat.com <https://red.ht/sig>
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 19:14:12 +0300 Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
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:
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?
Well, I'm not strictly opposed to that, but let me ask... will we have a programatic way of attaching an ISO to a host usable from external tools? In IMS project we rely on guest tools ISO in ISO domain and we already have a request to support ISOs from data domains. But last time I've heard using vdsm-client to call Image.prepare and Image.tearDown is not strictly "supported" API. Please excuse my ignorance if there is already some other way to do that. Tomas -- Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi@redhat.com>
On Fri, 5 Apr 2019 10:58:43 +0200 Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi@redhat.com> wrote:
On Tue, 2 Apr 2019 19:14:12 +0300 Nir Soffer <nsoffer@redhat.com> wrote:
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:
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?
Well, I'm not strictly opposed to that, but let me ask... will we have a programatic way of attaching an ISO to a host usable from external tools?
In IMS project we rely on guest tools ISO in ISO domain and we already have a request to support ISOs from data domains. But last time I've heard using vdsm-client to call Image.prepare and Image.tearDown is not strictly "supported" API.
And obviously this has to be possible to do from two hosts at the same time for concurrent conversions.
Please excuse my ignorance if there is already some other way to do that.
Tomas
-- Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi@redhat.com>
-- Tomáš Golembiovský <tgolembi@redhat.com>
participants (7)
-
Dan Kenigsberg -
Martin Perina -
Martin Tessun -
Michal Skrivanek -
Nir Soffer -
Sandro Bonazzola -
Tomáš Golembiovský