3:45 a.m.
--_000_c9bc721d3e0f454d8777b18f6154406aCD1911M21corpads_
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long time =
to complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is al=
ready a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very long tim=
e - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1217401)
I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is 180=
seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun sc=
an returns properly, but I'm hoping someone can warn me if this workaround =
is safe or if it'll cause other potential issues? I made this change yeste=
rday and so far so good.
Thanks,
Ryan
--_000_c9bc721d3e0f454d8777b18f6154406aCD1911M21corpads_
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<html xmlns:v=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml"
xmlns:o=3D"urn:schemas-micr=
osoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w=3D"urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word"
=
xmlns:m=3D"http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml"
xmlns=3D"http:=
//www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40" <head <meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type"
content=3D"text/html; charset=3Dus-ascii"=
<meta name=3D"Generator" content=3D"Microsoft
Word 14 (filtered medium)" <style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Century Gothic";
panose-1:2 11 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Century Gothic","sans-serif";
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml
<o:shapedefaults v:ext=3D"edit" spidmax=3D"1026" / </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso
9]><xml <o:shapelayout
v:ext=3D"edit" <o:idmap v:ext=3D"edit"
data=3D"1" /
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--
</head <body lang=3D"EN-US"
link=3D"blue" vlink=3D"purple" <div
class=3D"WordSection1" <p
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury Gothic","sans-serif"">When I try to attach new
direct =
lun disks, the scan takes a very long time to complete because of the numbe=
r of pvs presented to my hosts (there is already a bug on
this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very long time - <a href=3D=
"https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1217401"
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D1217401</a>)<o:p&g...
></p <p
class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury
Gothic","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury Gothic","sans-serif"">I discovered a workaround
by set=
ting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is 180 seconds by default). I changed =
it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun scan returns properly,
but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround is safe or if =
it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change yesterda=
y and so far so good.<o:p></o:p></span></p <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury
Gothic","sans-serif""><o:p> </o:p></span></p <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury
Gothic","sans-serif"">Thanks,<o:p></o:p></span></p <p class=3D"MsoNormal"><span
style=3D"font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Ce=
ntury
Gothic","sans-serif"">Ryan<o:p></o:p></span></p </div
</body </html
--_000_c9bc721d3e0f454d8777b18f6154406aCD1911M21corpads_--
10:44 p.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
To: users(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long time to
complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is
already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very long
time - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is 180
seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun scan
returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround is
safe or if it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change yesterday
and so far so good.
Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount of time to complete
before failing on timeout - which will
cause delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all executions) when not
everything is operational and up as expected (as in most of the time).
I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the timeout of specific
operations if a user want to do that.
thanks,
Liron.
Thanks,
Ryan
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
12:23 a.m.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
> To: users(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
>
>
>
> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long time
> to
> complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is
> already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very long
> time - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>
>
>
> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is 180
> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun
> scan
> returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround is
> safe or if it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change yesterday
> and so far so good.
>
Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount of time to
complete before failing on timeout - which will
cause delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all executions)
when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most of the
time).
I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the timeout of
specific operations if a user want to do that.
thanks,
Liron.
>
if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing),
this might cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence the host,
so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins,
you should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is non-responsive and fence,
so if you have HA vm on this host, this will be the vm downtime as well,
as the engine will restart HA vms only after fencing.
you can read more on
http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
>
> Thanks,
>
> Ryan
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
11:57 a.m.
On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
>>
>>
>>
>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long time
>> to
>> complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is
>> already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very long
>> time - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>
>>
>>
>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is 180
>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun
>> scan
>> returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround is
>> safe or if it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change yesterday
>> and so far so good.
>>
> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount of time to
> complete before failing on timeout - which will
> cause delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all executions)
> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most of the
> time).
> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the timeout of
> specific operations if a user want to do that.
>
> thanks,
> Liron.
if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing),
this might cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence the host,
so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins,
you should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is non-responsive and fence,
so if you have HA vm on this host, this will be the vm downtime as well,
as the engine will restart HA vms only after fencing.
you can read more on
http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we are
able to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs to use
the feature judicially :)
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Ryan
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
4:12 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi <shtripat(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
>> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on
>> engine?
>>
>>
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>
>>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on
>>> engine?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long
>>> time
>>> to
>>> complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is
>>> already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very
>>> long
>>> time - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is
>>> 180
>>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun
>>> scan
>>> returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround
>>> is
>>> safe or if it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change
>>> yesterday
>>> and so far so good.
>>>
>> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
>> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount of
>> time to
>> complete before failing on timeout - which will
>> cause delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all
>> executions)
>> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most of the
>> time).
>> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the timeout of
>> specific operations if a user want to do that.
>>
>> thanks,
>> Liron.
>
> if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing),
> this might cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
> the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence the
> host,
> so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins,
> you should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is non-responsive
> and fence,
> so if you have HA vm on this host, this will be the vm downtime as well,
> as the engine will restart HA vms only after fencing.
>
> you can read more on
> http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we are able
to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs to use the
feature judicially :)
Please open a RFE for being able to set operation timeout for single
command call with description of use cases for which
you would like to set the timeout.
>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>> Ryan
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
4:25 p.m.
On 07/13/2015 01:42 PM, Piotr Kliczewski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi
<shtripat(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on
>>> engine?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on
>>>> engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very long
>>>> time
>>>> to
>>>> complete because of the number of pvs presented to my hosts (there is
>>>> already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate command taking a very
>>>> long
>>>> time - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher (it is
>>>> 180
>>>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the direct lun
>>>> scan
>>>> returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn me if this workaround
>>>> is
>>>> safe or if it’ll cause other potential issues? I made this change
>>>> yesterday
>>>> and so far so good.
>>>>
>>> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
>>> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount of
>>> time to
>>> complete before failing on timeout - which will
>>> cause delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all
>>> executions)
>>> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most of the
>>> time).
>>> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the timeout of
>>> specific operations if a user want to do that.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Liron.
>> if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing),
>> this might cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
>> the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence the
>> host,
>> so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins,
>> you should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is non-responsive
>> and fence,
>> so if you have HA vm on this host, this will be the vm downtime as well,
>> as the engine will restart HA vms only after fencing.
>>
>> you can read more on
>> http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
>
> Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
> snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
> So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we are able
> to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs to use the
> feature judicially :)
>
Please open a RFE for being able to set operation timeout for single
command call with description of use cases for which
you would like to set the timeout.
Piotr,
I created an RFE BZ at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242373.
Thanks and Regards,
Shubhendu
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
11:12 p.m.
Thanks for the responses everyone and for the RFE. I do use HA in some places at the
moment, but I do see another timeout value called vdsConnectionTimeout. Would HA use this
value or vdsTimeout (set to 2 by default) when attempting to contact the host?
-----Original Message-----
From: Shubhendu Tripathi [mailto:shtripat@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:25 AM
To: Piotr Kliczewski
Cc: Omer Frenkel; Groten, Ryan; users(a)ovirt.org
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
On 07/13/2015 01:42 PM, Piotr Kliczewski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi
<shtripat(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
>>> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout
>>> value on engine?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value
>>>> on engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very
>>>> long time to complete because of the number of pvs presented to my
>>>> hosts (there is already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate
>>>> command taking a very long time -
>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher
>>>> (it is
>>>> 180
>>>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the
>>>> direct lun scan returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn
>>>> me if this workaround is safe or if it’ll cause other potential
>>>> issues? I made this change yesterday and so far so good.
>>>>
>>> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
>>> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount
>>> of time to complete before failing on timeout - which will cause
>>> delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all
>>> executions)
>>> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most
>>> of the time).
>>> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the
>>> timeout of specific operations if a user want to do that.
>>>
>>> thanks,
>>> Liron.
>> if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing), this might
>> cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
>> the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence
>> the host, so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins, you
>> should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is
>> non-responsive and fence, so if you have HA vm on this host, this
>> will be the vm downtime as well, as the engine will restart HA vms
>> only after fencing.
>>
>> you can read more on
>> http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
>
> Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
> snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
> So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we
> are able to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs
> to use the feature judicially :)
>
Please open a RFE for being able to set operation timeout for single
command call with description of use cases for which you would like to
set the timeout.
Piotr,
I created an RFE BZ at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242373.
Thanks and Regards,
Shubhendu
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> Ryan
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
3:05 p.m.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Groten, Ryan <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com> wrote:
Thanks for the responses everyone and for the RFE. I do use HA in
some places at the moment, but I do see another timeout value called vdsConnectionTimeout.
Would HA use this value or vdsTimeout (set to 2 by default) when attempting to contact
the host?
There is a difference between the two:
vdsConnectionTimeout - is a timeout used during connecting to a remote
host. By default it is 2 seconds.
vdsTimeout - high level command invocation timeout used by all
commands. By default it is 3 minutes.
As far as I understand you are looking for a possibility to customize
vdsTimeout for some of the commands.
-----Original Message-----
From: Shubhendu Tripathi [mailto:shtripat@redhat.com]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:25 AM
To: Piotr Kliczewski
Cc: Omer Frenkel; Groten, Ryan; users(a)ovirt.org
Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
On 07/13/2015 01:42 PM, Piotr Kliczewski wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi <shtripat(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>> On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
>>>> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout
>>>> value on engine?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>>>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value
>>>>> on engine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very
>>>>> long time to complete because of the number of pvs presented to my
>>>>> hosts (there is already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate
>>>>> command taking a very long time -
>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher
>>>>> (it is
>>>>> 180
>>>>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the
>>>>> direct lun scan returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can warn
>>>>> me if this workaround is safe or if it’ll cause other potential
>>>>> issues? I made this change yesterday and so far so good.
>>>>>
>>>> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
>>>> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount
>>>> of time to complete before failing on timeout - which will cause
>>>> delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all
>>>> executions)
>>>> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most
>>>> of the time).
>>>> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the
>>>> timeout of specific operations if a user want to do that.
>>>>
>>>> thanks,
>>>> Liron.
>>> if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing), this might
>>> cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
>>> the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence
>>> the host, so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins, you
>>> should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is
>>> non-responsive and fence, so if you have HA vm on this host, this
>>> will be the vm downtime as well, as the engine will restart HA vms
>>> only after fencing.
>>>
>>> you can read more on
>>> http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
>>
>> Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
>> snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
>> So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we
>> are able to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs
>> to use the feature judicially :)
>>
> Please open a RFE for being able to set operation timeout for single
> command call with description of use cases for which you would like to
> set the timeout.
Piotr,
I created an RFE BZ at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242373.
Thanks and Regards,
Shubhendu
>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>
>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Users mailing list
>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
3:09 p.m.
On 07/14/2015 12:35 PM, Piotr Kliczewski wrote:
On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:12 PM, Groten, Ryan
<Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the responses everyone and for the RFE. I do use HA in some places at the
moment, but I do see another timeout value called vdsConnectionTimeout. Would HA use this
value or vdsTimeout (set to 2 by default) when attempting to contact the host?
>
There is a difference between the two:
vdsConnectionTimeout - is a timeout used during connecting to a remote
host. By default it is 2 seconds.
vdsTimeout - high level command invocation timeout used by all
commands. By default it is 3 minutes.
As far as I understand you are looking for a possibility to customize
vdsTimeout for some of the commands.
For me, yes, the case is to have an option to set higher value of
vdsTimeout for a specific command.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Shubhendu Tripathi [mailto:shtripat@redhat.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2015 2:25 AM
> To: Piotr Kliczewski
> Cc: Omer Frenkel; Groten, Ryan; users(a)ovirt.org
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value on engine?
>
> On 07/13/2015 01:42 PM, Piotr Kliczewski wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 13, 2015 at 5:57 AM, Shubhendu Tripathi <shtripat(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
>>> On 07/12/2015 09:53 PM, Omer Frenkel wrote:
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>> From: "Liron Aravot" <laravot(a)redhat.com>
>>>>> To: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>>> Cc: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>> Sent: Sunday, July 12, 2015 5:44:28 PM
>>>>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout
>>>>> value on engine?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>>>> From: "Ryan Groten" <Ryan.Groten(a)stantec.com>
>>>>>> To: users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>> Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 10:45:11 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [ovirt-users] Concerns with increasing vdsTimeout value
>>>>>> on engine?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When I try to attach new direct lun disks, the scan takes a very
>>>>>> long time to complete because of the number of pvs presented to
my
>>>>>> hosts (there is already a bug on this, related to the pvcreate
>>>>>> command taking a very long time -
>>>>>> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1217401 )
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I discovered a workaround by setting the vdsTimeout value higher
>>>>>> (it is
>>>>>> 180
>>>>>> seconds by default). I changed it to 300 seconds and now the
>>>>>> direct lun scan returns properly, but I’m hoping someone can
warn
>>>>>> me if this workaround is safe or if it’ll cause other potential
>>>>>> issues? I made this change yesterday and so far so good.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Hi, no serious issue can be caused by that.
>>>>> Keep in mind though that any other operation will have that amount
>>>>> of time to complete before failing on timeout - which will cause
>>>>> delays before failing (as the timeout was increased for all
>>>>> executions)
>>>>> when not everything is operational and up as expected (as in most
>>>>> of the time).
>>>>> I'd guess that a RFE could be opened to allow increasing the
>>>>> timeout of specific operations if a user want to do that.
>>>>>
>>>>> thanks,
>>>>> Liron.
>>>> if you have HA vms and use power management (fencing), this might
>>>> cause longer downtime for HA vms if host has network timeouts:
>>>> the engine will wait for 3 network failures before trying to fence
>>>> the host, so in case of timeouts, and increasing it to 5mins, you
>>>> should expect 15mins before engine will decide host is
>>>> non-responsive and fence, so if you have HA vm on this host, this
>>>> will be the vm downtime as well, as the engine will restart HA vms
>>>> only after fencing.
>>>>
>>>> you can read more on
>>>> http://www.ovirt.org/Automatic_Fencing
>>> Even I am in a need where, I try to delete all the 256 gluster volume
>>> snapshots using a single gluster CLI command, and engine gets timed out.
>>> So, as Liron suggested it would be better if at VDSM verb level we
>>> are able to set timeout. That would be better option and caller needs
>>> to use the feature judicially :)
>>>
>> Please open a RFE for being able to set operation timeout for single
>> command call with description of use cases for which you would like to
>> set the timeout.
> Piotr,
>
> I created an RFE BZ at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1242373.
>
> Thanks and Regards,
> Shubhendu
>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ryan
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Users mailing list
>>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Users mailing list
>>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users(a)ovirt.org
>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
3270
days inactive
3274
days old
8 comments
5 participants
participants (5)
-
Groten, Ryan -
Liron Aravot -
Omer Frenkel -
Piotr Kliczewski -
Shubhendu Tripathi