On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 12:01 AM Matt Simonsen <matt@khoza.com> wrote:

Hello all,

Following this report below, I did a reboot. Now I have a real question.

I added the VG, LV and mount point to this node using the port 9090 web
interface.

Now the volume group isn't active and will not mount, causing the boot
to hang.

I am able to do "vgchange -ay data" and then a manual mount in rescue mode.

Any feedback on the best way to add a new volume group to an empty
partition (sdb) would be appreciated. Prior to using the web interface,
I was having failures using the manual tools to /dev/sdb with an error
"device /dev/sdb excluded by filter" which I suspect is related.

Maybe you have lvm filter set, which is highly recommend for an oVirt hypervisor.

To add /dev/sdb, you need to add it to the lvm filter in /etc/lvm/lvm.conf.

After you configure the device properly, you can generate lvm filter

for the current setup using:

vdsm-tool config-lvm-filter

Here is example run on unconfigued oVirt host:

# vdsm-tool config-lvm-filter

Analyzing host...

Found these mounted logical volumes on this host:

logical volume: /dev/mapper/fedora_voodoo1-root

mountpoint: /

devices: /dev/vda2

logical volume: /dev/mapper/fedora_voodoo1-swap

mountpoint: [SWAP]

devices: /dev/vda2

This is the recommended LVM filter for this host:

filter = [ "a|^/dev/vda2$|", "r|.*|" ]

This filter allows LVM to access the local devices used by the

hypervisor, but not shared storage owned by Vdsm. If you add a new

device to the volume group, you will need to edit the filter manually.

Nir

On 09/04/2018 01:23 PM, Matt Simonsen wrote:

> Hello,
>
> I'm running oVirt with several data centers, some with NFS storage and
> some with local storage.
>
> I had problems in the past with a large pool and local storage. The
> problem was nodectl showed the pool being too full (I think >80%), but
> it was only the images that made the pool "full" -- and this storage
> was carefully setup such that there was no chance it would actually
> fill. The LVs for oVirt itself were all under 20%, yet nodectl still
> reported the pool was too full.
>
> My solution so far has been to use our RAID card tools, so that sda is
> the oVirt node install, and sdb is for images. There are probably
> other good reasons for me to handle it this way, for example being
> able to use different RAID levels, but I'm hoping someone can confirm
> my partitioning below doesn't have some risk I'm now yet aware of.
>
> I setup a new volume group for images, as below:
>
>
> [root@node4-g8-h4 multipath]# pvs
> PV                                             VG Fmt Attr PSize
> PFree
> /dev/mapper/3600508b1001c7e172160824d7b204c3b2 onn_node4-g8-h4 lvm2
> a-- <119.00g <22.85g
> /dev/sdb1                                      data lvm2 a-- 1.13t
> <361.30g
>
> [root@node4-g8-h4 multipath]# vgs
> VG              #PV #LV #SN Attr   VSize    VFree
> data              1   1   0 wz--n-    1.13t <361.30g
> onn_node4-g8-h4   1 13   0 wz--n- <119.00g <22.85g
>
> [root@node4-g8-h4 multipath]# lvs
> LV                                   VG              Attr LSize
> Pool   Origin                             Data% Meta% Move Log
> Cpy%Sync Convert
> images_main                          data            -wi-ao---- 800.00g
> home                                 onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 1.00g pool00 4.79
> ovirt-node-ng-4.2.5.1-0.20180816.0   onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi---tz-k
> 64.10g pool00 root
> ovirt-node-ng-4.2.5.1-0.20180816.0+1 onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi---tz--
> 64.10g pool00 ovirt-node-ng-4.2.5.1-0.20180816.0
> ovirt-node-ng-4.2.6-0.20180903.0     onn_node4-g8-h4 Vri---tz-k
> 64.10g pool00
> ovirt-node-ng-4.2.6-0.20180903.0+1   onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 64.10g pool00 ovirt-node-ng-4.2.6-0.20180903.0 4.83
> pool00                               onn_node4-g8-h4 twi-aotz--
> 91.10g                                           8.94 0.49
> root                                 onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi---tz--
> 64.10g pool00
> swap                                 onn_node4-g8-h4 -wi-ao---- 4.00g
> tmp                                  onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 1.00g pool00 4.87
> var                                  onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 15.00g pool00 3.31
> var_crash                            onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 10.00g pool00 2.86
> var_log                              onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 8.00g pool00 3.57
> var_log_audit                        onn_node4-g8-h4 Vwi-aotz--
> 2.00g pool00                                    4.89
>
>
>
> The images_main is setup as "Block device for filesystems" with ext4.
> Is there any reason I should consider pool for thinly provisioned
> volumes? I don't need to over-allocate storage and it seems to me
> like a fixed partition is ideal. Please confirm or let me know if
> there's anything else I should consider.
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list -- users@ovirt.org
> To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@ovirt.org/message/I7N547X6DC7KHHVCDGKXQGNJV6TG7E3U/
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list -- users@ovirt.org
To unsubscribe send an email to users-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/users@ovirt.org/message/LJINANK6PAGVV22H5OTYTJ3M4WIWPTMV/