On 06/20/2014 02:52 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:
Am 20.06.2014 14:19, schrieb Dan Kenigsberg:
>> the host was not fenced, the vms where fenced.
>>
>> here is a link to the documentation which should explain what I mean:
>>
>>
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Vir...
> Are you refering to the paragraph: "When a required network becomes
> non-operational, the virtual machines running on the network are fenced
> and migrated to another host. This is beneficial if you have machines
> running mission critical workloads."?
yes
Isn't that section referring to HA VMs?
>> this is about a single host in a cluster - ovirt can't even fence
>> single hosts in a single cluster yet, see my other bug report for this:
>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054778
>>
>> I could provide logs if they are really necessary, but I doubt they are.
>> This is documented behaviour, but it is poorly designed, as described
>> in the BZ.
> Apparently, I am not familiar enough with Engine's fencing logic; logs
> may help me understand the issue, for me they are necessary is this
> case. In particular, I'd like to see with my own eyes whether the VMs
> where explicitly destroyed by Engine. Migrating VMs to an operational
> destination makes a lot of sense. Destroying a running VM in attempt
> to recuperate of a host networking issue is extraordinary (and as such,
> requires exraordinary evidence).
I might be able to attach some logs later.
--
Regards,
Vinzenz Feenstra | Senior Software Engineer
RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D
Phone: +420 532 294 625
IRC: vfeenstr or evilissimo
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at
redhat.com