5:30 p.m.
Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s not available to add
new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain when adding a VM. At the least,
I’d like to make another storage domain the default.
Is there a way to do this?
Thanks
11:42 a.m.
On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s
not available to add new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain when adding a
VM. At the least, I’d like to make another storage domain the default.
Is there a way to do this?
This would be a nice thing to have.
AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate this
particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark a
storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the allocatable
option for LVM physical volumes).
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Boot
bootc(a)bootc.net
11:56 a.m.
As a workaround, I think that the list of storage domains in the new disk
window is sorted alphabetically.
You can try to edit the name of the storage domain to be on the bottom of
the list and not first.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Chris Boot <bootc(a)bootc.net> wrote:
On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
> Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s not
available to add new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain
when adding a VM. At the least, I’d like to make another storage domain
the default.
> Is there a way to do this?
This would be a nice thing to have.
AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate this
particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark a
storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the allocatable
option for LVM physical volumes).
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Boot
bootc(a)bootc.net
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
5:49 p.m.
--Apple-Mail=_35D365BE-D2FC-4ADD-A20C-EA3CC24B95BE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=utf-8
Can it be safely renamed? It looks like the GUI will let me but I =
don=E2=80=99t feel confident that it won=E2=80=99t create other issues. =20=
On Jun 22, 2017, at 1:56 AM, Fred Rolland <frolland(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
=20
As a workaround, I think that the list of storage domains in the new =
disk window
is sorted alphabetically.
You can try to edit the name of the storage domain to be on the
bottom =
of the list and not first.
=20
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Chris Boot <bootc(a)bootc.net =
<mailto:bootc@bootc.net>> wrote:
On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
> Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it=E2=80=
=99s
not available to add new VMs to? Right now it=E2=80=99s the =
default storage domain when adding a VM. At the least, I=E2=80=99d like =
to make another storage domain the default.
> Is there a way to do this?
=20
This would be a nice thing to have.
=20
AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate =
this
particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark
=
a
storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the =
allocatable
option for LVM physical volumes).
=20
Cheers,
Chris
=20
--
Chris Boot
bootc(a)bootc.net <mailto:bootc@bootc.net>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users =
<http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users>
=20
--Apple-Mail=_35D365BE-D2FC-4ADD-A20C-EA3CC24B95BE
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/html;
charset=utf-8
<html><head><meta http-equiv=3D"Content-Type"
content=3D"text/html =
charset=3Dutf-8"></head><body style=3D"word-wrap: break-word; =
-webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" =
class=3D"">Can it be safely renamed? It looks like the GUI will =
let me but I don=E2=80=99t feel confident that it won=E2=80=99t create =
other issues. <div class=3D""><br
class=3D""></div><div =
class=3D""><div><blockquote type=3D"cite"
class=3D""><div class=3D"">On =
Jun 22, 2017, at 1:56 AM, Fred Rolland <<a =
href=3D"mailto:frolland@redhat.com"
class=3D"">frolland(a)redhat.com</a>&gt;=
wrote:</div><br class=3D"Apple-interchange-newline"><div
class=3D""><div =
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><div class=3D"">As a
workaround, I think that the =
list of storage domains in the new disk window is sorted =
alphabetically.<br class=3D""></div>You can try to edit the name of
the =
storage domain to be on the bottom of the list and not first.<br =
class=3D""></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br
class=3D""><div =
class=3D"gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Chris Boot <span
=
dir=3D"ltr" class=3D""><<a
href=3D"mailto:bootc@bootc.net" =
target=3D"_blank"
class=3D"">bootc(a)bootc.net</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br =
class=3D""><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote"
style=3D"margin:0 0 0 =
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span
class=3D"">On =
19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:<br class=3D"">
> Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that =
it=E2=80=99s not available to add new VMs to? Right now it=E2=80=99s=
the default storage domain when adding a VM. At the least, I=E2=80=99=
d like to make another storage domain the default.<br class=3D"">
> Is there a way to do this?<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
</span>This would be a nice thing to have.<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a<br =
class=3D"">
dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate =
this<br class=3D"">
particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark =
a<br class=3D"">
storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the =
allocatable<br class=3D"">
option for LVM physical volumes).<br class=3D"">
<br class=3D"">
Cheers,<br class=3D"">
Chris<br class=3D"">
<span class=3D"HOEnZb"><font color=3D"#888888"
class=3D""><br class=3D"">
--<br class=3D"">
Chris Boot<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:bootc@bootc.net"
class=3D"">bootc(a)bootc.net</a><br =
class=3D"">
</font></span><div class=3D"HOEnZb"><div =
class=3D"h5">______________________________<wbr =
class=3D"">_________________<br class=3D"">
Users mailing list<br class=3D"">
<a href=3D"mailto:Users@ovirt.org"
class=3D"">Users(a)ovirt.org</a><br =
class=3D"">
<a href=3D"http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank" =
class=3D"">http://lists.ovirt.org/<wbr =
class=3D"">mailman/listinfo/users</a><br class=3D"">
</div></div></blockquote></div><br
class=3D""></div>
</div></blockquote></div><br
class=3D""></div></body></html>=
--Apple-Mail=_35D365BE-D2FC-4ADD-A20C-EA3CC24B95BE--
5:57 p.m.
I do not see any reference to the name in the engine source code.
Hosted engine agent uses UUID to identify it. So I think it should be
fine.
Martin
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, aduckers <alex.duckers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Can it be safely renamed? It looks like the GUI will let me but I
don’t
feel confident that it won’t create other issues.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 1:56 AM, Fred Rolland <frolland(a)redhat.com> wrote:
As a workaround, I think that the list of storage domains in the new disk
window is sorted alphabetically.
You can try to edit the name of the storage domain to be on the bottom of
the list and not first.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Chris Boot <bootc(a)bootc.net> wrote:
>
> On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
> > Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s not
> > available to add new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain when
> > adding a VM. At the least, I’d like to make another storage domain the
> > default.
> > Is there a way to do this?
>
> This would be a nice thing to have.
>
> AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
> dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate this
> particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark a
> storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the allocatable
> option for LVM physical volumes).
>
> Cheers,
> Chris
>
> --
> Chris Boot
> bootc(a)bootc.net
> _______________________________________________
> 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
6:03 p.m.
So far so good. I renamed it, but it was still listed first in the list when creating an
image for a VM. After closing out my browser and reconnecting, it’s now behaving as I’d
expect - in alphabetical order.
On Jun 22, 2017, at 7:57 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak(a)redhat.com>
wrote:
I do not see any reference to the name in the engine source code.
Hosted engine agent uses UUID to identify it. So I think it should be
fine.
Martin
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 4:49 PM, aduckers <alex.duckers(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Can it be safely renamed? It looks like the GUI will let me but I don’t
> feel confident that it won’t create other issues.
>
> On Jun 22, 2017, at 1:56 AM, Fred Rolland <frolland(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> As a workaround, I think that the list of storage domains in the new disk
> window is sorted alphabetically.
> You can try to edit the name of the storage domain to be on the bottom of
> the list and not first.
>
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:42 AM, Chris Boot <bootc(a)bootc.net> wrote:
>>
>> On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
>>> Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s not
>>> available to add new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain when
>>> adding a VM. At the least, I’d like to make another storage domain the
>>> default.
>>> Is there a way to do this?
>>
>> This would be a nice thing to have.
>>
>> AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
>> dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate this
>> particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark a
>> storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the allocatable
>> option for LVM physical volumes).
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Chris
>>
>> --
>> Chris Boot
>> bootc(a)bootc.net
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
12:37 p.m.
Hi,
Chris is right. We want to remove the specialty status from that
storage domain. It is one of the highest priority items for hosted
engine right now.
There is currently no way to hide it I am afraid.
Best regards
--
Martin Sivak
SLA / oVirt
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 10:42 AM, Chris Boot <bootc(a)bootc.net> wrote:
On 19/06/17 15:30, Mike Farnam wrote:
> Hi All - Is that a way to mark hosted_storage somehow so that it’s not available to
add new VMs to? Right now it’s the default storage domain when adding a VM. At the
least, I’d like to make another storage domain the default.
> Is there a way to do this?
This would be a nice thing to have.
AIUI, however, the oVirt folks are working towards not needing a
dedicated storage domain for the hosted engine, which may alleviate this
particular gripe. That being said, it would otherwise be nice to mark a
storage domain as not usable for new volumes (a bit like the allocatable
option for LVM physical volumes).
Cheers,
Chris
--
Chris Boot
bootc(a)bootc.net
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
1:06 p.m.
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Martin Sivak <msivak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
Hi,
Chris is right. We want to remove the specialty status from that
storage domain. It is one of the highest priority items for hosted
engine right now.
There is currently no way to hide it I am afraid.
Best regards
--
Martin Sivak
SLA / oVirt
Hello Martin (and list),
any update on this item to remove specialty of hosted_engine storage?
Any bugzilla RFE or pointer? I think it didn't catch 4.2, correct?
Thanks,
Gianluca
1:43 p.m.
Hi,
we got much closer to officially remove the specialty status of both
the domain and the VM in 4.2 with features like Node 0 deployment
(default since 4.2.1) and direct libvirtxml support in engine and HE
(4.2.2 iirc).
There are couple of outstanding issues:
- HE needs to know how to connect all storage domains necessary for HE
VM disks (not 100% related, but close)
- (live) storage migration is not supported yet - HE nodes need to
learn about the new connection details
- changes to gluster topology are not supported yet - same reason as above
- we have a bug with regards to block devices - will be fixed by
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/87325/
- fencing and SPM role need to be tested a bit more to make sure we
have no surprises there
- old deployments might not have some data in the engine DB
(https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1373930)
We will not be adding any additional limits as all seems to work in
the usual cases and we work on removing the remaining restrictions. I
am not 100% certain when it will be finished exactly, but you can use
it now if you are careful (basically do not use custom mount options
and do not add disks to the HE VM that would come from a different
SD!!).
We have two tracking bugs for the related work:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1455169 and
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1393902 - most of what was
needed was fixed already.
Best regards
Martin Sivak
On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 11:06 AM, Gianluca Cecchi
<gianluca.cecchi(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jun 22, 2017 at 11:37 AM, Martin Sivak
<msivak(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Chris is right. We want to remove the specialty status from that
> storage domain. It is one of the highest priority items for hosted
> engine right now.
>
> There is currently no way to hide it I am afraid.
>
> Best regards
>
> --
> Martin Sivak
> SLA / oVirt
>
Hello Martin (and list),
any update on this item to remove specialty of hosted_engine storage?
Any bugzilla RFE or pointer? I think it didn't catch 4.2, correct?
Thanks,
Gianluca
2478
days inactive
2713
days old
8 comments
6 participants
participants (6)
-
aduckers -
Chris Boot -
Fred Rolland -
Gianluca Cecchi -
Martin Sivak -
Mike Farnam