This conversation is fine but if I want to force remove no matter what I should be able to from the GUI. The nodes are no longer available I want to get rid of them ovirt does not let me. I can delete from database but why not from the GUI? I am sure others may run into this problem as well.
Dominic
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Douglas Landgraf" <dougsland@redhat.com>
> To: "Dominic Kaiser" <dominic@bostonvineyard.org>
> Cc: "Eli Mesika" <emesika@redhat.com>, users@ovirt.org, "Robert Middleswarth" <robert@middleswarth.net>
> Sent: Friday, September 21, 2012 8:12:27 PM
> Subject: Re: [Users] Is there a way to force remove a host?
>
> Hi Dominic,
>
> On 09/20/2012 12:11 PM, Dominic Kaiser wrote:
> > Sorry I did not explain.
> >
> > I had tried to remove the host and had not luck troubleshooting it.
> > I
> > then had removed it and used it for a storage unit reinstalling
> > fedora
> > 17. I foolishly thought that I could just remove the host
> > manually.
> > It physically is not there. (My fault I know) Is there a way that
> > you know of to remove a host brute force.
> >
> > dk
>
> Fell free to try the below script (not part of official project) for
> brute force:
>
> (from the engine side)
> # yum install python-psycopg2 -y
> # wget
> https://raw.github.com/dougsland/misc-rhev/master/engine_force_remove_Host.py
> # (edit the file and change the db password)
> # python ./engine_force_remove_Host.py
Hi , had looked in the Python script you had provided:
First, I must say that handling the database directly may leave DB in inconsistent state, therefore, if there is no other option, the database should be backed up prior to this operation.
In addition, I do not like the execution of the SQL statements in the script.
There is a SP called DeleteVds(v_vds_id UUID) and you should use that since it encapsulates all details.
For example, your script does not handle permission clean-up as the SP does and therefore leaves garbage in the database.
In addition, a failure in your script may leave database in inconsistent state while the SP is executed in one transaction and will leave DB consistent.
So, in short I would prefer in this case that the relevant SP will do the clean-up since this is the one that is used by the code and that insures (at least I hope so) , that all related entities are removed as well.
>
> Thanks
>
> --
> Cheers
> Douglas
>
>