6:15 a.m.
Hi,
we are developing an application where would be great if multiple host
could have access to the same disk. I think that we can use features
like shared disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to multiple
VM's. However to provide concurrent access to the resource, there should
be a cluster file system used. The most popular open source cluster file
systems are GFS2 and OCFS2. So my questions are:
1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You used?
2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does
anyone have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
Many thanks,
Piotr
6:23 a.m.
Why not use gluster with xfs on the storage bricks?
http://www.gluster.org/
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski
<piotr.szubiakowski(a)nask.pl> wrote:
Hi,
we are developing an application where would be great if multiple host could
have access to the same disk. I think that we can use features like shared
disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to multiple VM's. However to
provide concurrent access to the resource, there should be a cluster file
system used. The most popular open source cluster file systems are GFS2 and
OCFS2. So my questions are:
1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You used?
2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does anyone
have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
Many thanks,
Piotr
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
6:53 a.m.
Hi,
gluster is good in scenario when we have many hosts with own storage and
we aggregate these pieces it into one shared storage. In this situation
data is transferred via Ethernet ore Infiniband. In our scenario we have
centralized storage accedes via Fibre Channel. In this situation it
would be more efficient when data would be transferred through FC.
Thanks,
Piotr
W dniu 10.07.2013 13:23, Chris Smith pisze:
Why not use gluster with xfs on the storage bricks?
http://www.gluster.org/
On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski
<piotr.szubiakowski(a)nask.pl> wrote:
> Hi,
> we are developing an application where would be great if multiple host could
> have access to the same disk. I think that we can use features like shared
> disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to multiple VM's. However to
> provide concurrent access to the resource, there should be a cluster file
> system used. The most popular open source cluster file systems are GFS2 and
> OCFS2. So my questions are:
>
> 1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You used?
> 2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does anyone
> have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
>
> Many thanks,
> Piotr
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users(a)ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
8:26 a.m.
On 07/10/2013 07:53 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
Hi,
gluster is good in scenario when we have many hosts with own storage and we
aggregate these pieces it into one shared storage. In this situation data is
transferred via Ethernet ore Infiniband. In our scenario we have centralized
storage accedes via Fibre Channel. In this situation it would be more
efficient when data would be transferred through FC.
For FC disk presented to all nodes in the cluster, why use a filesystem?
use LVM instead,
http://www.ovirt.org/Vdsm_Block_Storage_Domains
Thanks,
Piotr
W dniu 10.07.2013 13:23, Chris Smith pisze:
> Why not use gluster with xfs on the storage bricks?
>
> http://www.gluster.org/
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 7:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski
> <piotr.szubiakowski(a)nask.pl> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> we are developing an application where would be great if multiple host could
>> have access to the same disk. I think that we can use features like shared
>> disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to multiple VM's. However to
>> provide concurrent access to the resource, there should be a cluster file
>> system used. The most popular open source cluster file systems are GFS2 and
>> OCFS2. So my questions are:
>>
>> 1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You used?
>> 2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does anyone
>> have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
>>
>> Many thanks,
>> Piotr
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
9:33 a.m.
On 07/10/2013 07:53 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
> Hi,
> gluster is good in scenario when we have many hosts with own storage and we
> aggregate these pieces it into one shared storage. In this situation data is
> transferred via Ethernet ore Infiniband. In our scenario we have centralized
> storage accedes via Fibre Channel. In this situation it would be more
> efficient when data would be transferred through FC.
For FC disk presented to all nodes in the cluster, why use a filesystem?
use LVM instead,
http://www.ovirt.org/Vdsm_Block_Storage_Domains
The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very smart. There is separate
logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that logical volume at the same time
could be "touched" only by one host. Is it possible that two host access
read/write the same logical volume and there is no data corruption?
Thanks,
Piotr
12:43 p.m.
On 07/10/2013 05:33 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
smart.
There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that
logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host. Is
it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
there is no data corruption?
hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be pre-allocated,
so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
(also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
9:38 p.m.
2013-7-11 1:43, Itamar Heim:
On 07/10/2013 05:33 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very smart.
> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that
> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host. Is
> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
> there is no data corruption?
hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
By using
"pre-allocated" here, even for qcow on KVM? If it is
pre-allocated, there is no benefit to use qcow.
(also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
Why it can not have snapshots? I think qcow on the block device can also
have snapshots.
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
--
---
舒明 Shu Ming
Open Virtualization Engineerning; CSTL, IBM Corp.
Tel: 86-10-82451626 Tieline: 9051626 E-mail: shuming(a)cn.ibm.com or
shuming(a)linux.vnet.ibm.com
Address: 3/F Ring Building, ZhongGuanCun Software Park, Haidian District, Beijing 100193,
PRC
1:58 a.m.
On 07/11/2013 05:38 AM, Shu Ming wrote:
2013-7-11 1:43, Itamar Heim:
> On 07/10/2013 05:33 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very smart.
>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that
>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host.
Is
>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
>> there is no data corruption?
>
> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
By using "pre-allocated" here, even for qcow on KVM? If it is
pre-allocated, there is no benefit to use qcow.
> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
Why it can not have snapshots? I think qcow on the block device can also
have snapshots.
of course, and we use it all the time, but not for shared disk, since
then you'd need to sync the qcow metadata changes between the two active
VMs writing to it
3:52 a.m.
> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
smart.
> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that
> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host. Is
> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
> there is no data corruption?
hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
(also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is normal
RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and access
shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
Thanks,
Piotr
5:02 a.m.
On 07/11/2013 11:52 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very smart.
>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think that
>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host.
Is
>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
>> there is no data corruption?
>
> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is normal
RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and access
shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
it was tested, but it has to be RAW/pre-allocated or either LV metadata
changes or qcow changes need to be changed in more than a single host.
5:44 a.m.
W dniu 11.07.2013 12:02, Itamar Heim pisze:
On 07/11/2013 11:52 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>
>>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
>>> smart.
>>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think
>>> that
>>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one
>>> host. Is
>>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume
>>> and
>>> there is no data corruption?
>>
>> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
>> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
>> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
>
> Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is normal
> RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and access
> shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
it was tested, but it has to be RAW/pre-allocated or either LV
metadata changes or qcow changes need to be changed in more than a
single host.
During this tests have You used any cluster file system?
Thanks,
Piotr
5:15 a.m.
On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
>> smart.
>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think
>> that
>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one host.
Is
>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume and
>> there is no data corruption?
>
> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is normal
RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and access
shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
I did a brief tests - 3 vms,
shared disk, cman/pacemaker + gfs2 - had no
problems using it, no data corruption. although that was only basic
tests, like create/move/delete files, no extensive usage/stress or
something like that.
5:45 a.m.
On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>
>>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
>>> smart.
>>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I think
>>> that
>>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one
>>> host. Is
>>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical volume
>>> and
>>> there is no data corruption?
>>
>> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
>> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
>> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
>
> Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is normal
> RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and access
> shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
I did a brief tests - 3 vms, shared disk, cman/pacemaker + gfs2 - had
no problems using it, no data corruption. although that was only basic
tests, like create/move/delete files, no extensive usage/stress or
something like that.
Thanks Yuri,
Is fencing handled by the cman/pacemaker? I read about the fanced daemon
and it seems to be difficult to use it together with oVirt.
Piotr
5:58 a.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------080506010200000803060006
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 07/11/2013 02:45 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
> On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>>
>>>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
>>>> smart.
>>>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I
>>>> think that
>>>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by one
>>>> host. Is
>>>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical
>>>> volume and
>>>> there is no data corruption?
>>>
>>> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
>>> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
>>> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
>>
>> Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is
>> normal RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and
>> access shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
> I did a brief tests - 3 vms, shared disk, cman/pacemaker + gfs2 - had
> no problems using it, no data corruption. although that was only
> basic tests, like create/move/delete files, no extensive usage/stress
> or something like that.
Thanks Yuri,
Is fencing handled by the cman/pacemaker? I read about the fanced
daemon and it seems to be difficult to use it together with oVirt.
Piotr
yea, fencing handled by pacemaker, stonith resource fence_rhev -
parameters according to man page, with one exception - had to add
/pcmk_host_list="vmname" /additional parameter, so pacemaker would know
that this stonith device belongs to that VM.
--------------080506010200000803060006
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/11/2013 02:45 PM, Piotr
Szubiakowski wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51DE8CD5.2030806@nask.pl"
type="cite">
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski
wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The way that oVirt manage storage
domains accessed via FC is very smart.
<br>
There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk.
But I think that
<br>
logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by
one host. Is
<br>
it possible that two host access read/write the same
logical volume and
<br>
there is no data corruption?
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
<br>
(also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is
normal RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature
and access shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
<br>
</blockquote>
I did a brief tests - 3 vms, shared disk, cman/pacemaker + gfs2
- had no problems using it, no data corruption. although that
was only basic tests, like create/move/delete files, no
extensive usage/stress or something like that.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Yuri,
<br>
Is fencing handled by the cman/pacemaker? I read about the fanced
daemon and it seems to be difficult to use it together with oVirt.
<br>
<br>
Piotr
<br>
</blockquote>
yea, fencing handled by pacemaker, stonith resource fence_rhev -
parameters according to man page, with one exception - had to add
<em>pcmk_host_list="vmname"
</em>additional parameter, so pacemaker would know that this stonith
device belongs to that VM.<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------080506010200000803060006--
7:49 a.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------040107040309070106020800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
On 07/11/2013 02:45 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>
>
>> On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The way that oVirt manage storage domains accessed via FC is very
>>>>> smart.
>>>>> There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk. But I
>>>>> think that
>>>>> logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only by
one
>>>>> host. Is
>>>>> it possible that two host access read/write the same logical
>>>>> volume and
>>>>> there is no data corruption?
>>>>
>>>> hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
>>>> pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be needed.
>>>> (also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become qcow)
>>>
>>> Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV is
>>> normal RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this feature and
>>> access shared disk from many VM's at the same time?
>> I did a brief tests - 3 vms, shared disk, cman/pacemaker + gfs2 -
>> had no problems using it, no data corruption. although that was only
>> basic tests, like create/move/delete files, no extensive
>> usage/stress or something like that.
>
> Thanks Yuri,
> Is fencing handled by the cman/pacemaker? I read about the fanced
> daemon and it seems to be difficult to use it together with oVirt.
>
> Piotr
yea, fencing handled by pacemaker, stonith resource fence_rhev -
parameters according to man page, with one exception - had to add
/pcmk_host_list="vmname" /additional parameter, so pacemaker would
know that this stonith device belongs to that VM.
It's great news for me!
Many thanks,
Piotr
--------------040107040309070106020800
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:51DE8FC1.4020700@gmail.com"
type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 07/11/2013 02:45 PM, Piotr
Szubiakowski wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:51DE8CD5.2030806@nask.pl"
type="cite"> <br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">On 07/11/2013 12:52 PM, Piotr
Szubiakowski wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite"> <br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">The way that oVirt manage storage
domains accessed via FC is very smart. <br>
There is separate logical volume for each virtual disk.
But I think that <br>
logical volume at the same time could be "touched" only
by one host. Is <br>
it possible that two host access read/write the same
logical volume and <br>
there is no data corruption? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
hence a shared disk over block storage using LVM must be
pre-allocated, so no LV changes (lv extend) would be
needed. <br>
(also, it cannot have snapshots, since it would become
qcow) <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Ok, but this is the hypervisor view. For a guest OS this LV
is normal RAW block device. I wonder if someone test this
feature and access shared disk from many VM's at the same
time? <br>
</blockquote>
I did a brief tests - 3 vms, shared disk, cman/pacemaker +
gfs2 - had no problems using it, no data corruption. although
that was only basic tests, like create/move/delete files, no
extensive usage/stress or something like that. <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Thanks Yuri, <br>
Is fencing handled by the cman/pacemaker? I read about the
fanced daemon and it seems to be difficult to use it together
with oVirt. <br>
<br>
Piotr <br>
</blockquote>
yea, fencing handled by pacemaker, stonith resource fence_rhev -
parameters according to man page, with one exception - had to add
<em>pcmk_host_list="vmname" </em>additional parameter, so
pacemaker would know that this stonith device belongs to that VM.<br>
</blockquote>
It's great news for me!<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Piotr<br>
</body>
</html>
--------------040107040309070106020800--
6:32 a.m.
Hi Piotr!
I've used OCFS2 out of oVirt, so I can't tell you specifically about VM
environment, but I suggest you use OCFS2 in place of GFS2. It is simpler
to implement, so less components to configure and it care about fencing
for you.
On 07/10/2013 08:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
Hi,
we are developing an application where would be great if multiple host
could have access to the same disk. I think that we can use features
like shared disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to multiple
VM's. However to provide concurrent access to the resource, there
should be a cluster file system used. The most popular open source
cluster file systems are GFS2 and OCFS2. So my questions are:
1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You
used?
2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does
anyone have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
Many thanks,
Piotr
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
Users(a)ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
7:16 a.m.
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--------------060805040100080505090603
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hi Eduardo,
yes fencing method used in OCFS2 is probably better for vitalized
environments. Thanks for advice!
Many thanks,
Piotr
W dniu 10.07.2013 13:32, Eduardo Ramos pisze:
Hi Piotr!
I've used OCFS2 out of oVirt, so I can't tell you specifically about
VM environment, but I suggest you use OCFS2 in place of GFS2. It is
simpler to implement, so less components to configure and it care
about fencing for you.
On 07/10/2013 08:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
> Hi,
> we are developing an application where would be great if multiple
> host could have access to the same disk. I think that we can use
> features like shared disk or direct LUN to attach the same storage to
> multiple VM's. However to provide concurrent access to the resource,
> there should be a cluster file system used. The most popular open
> source cluster file systems are GFS2 and OCFS2. So my questions are:
>
> 1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs did You
> used?
> 2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt? Does
> anyone have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
>
> Many thanks,
> Piotr
> _______________________________________________
> 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
--------------060805040100080505090603
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
<tt>Hi Eduardo,<br>
yes fencing method used in OCFS2 is probably better for vitalized
environments. Thanks for advice!<br>
<br>
Many thanks,<br>
Piotr <br>
</tt><br>
W dniu 10.07.2013 13:32, Eduardo Ramos pisze:
<blockquote cite="mid:51DD465D.70902@freedominterface.org"
type="cite">Hi Piotr!
<br>
<br>
I've used OCFS2 out of oVirt, so I can't tell you specifically
about VM environment, but I suggest you use OCFS2 in place of
GFS2. It is simpler to implement, so less components to configure
and it care about fencing for you.
<br>
<br>
On 07/10/2013 08:15 AM, Piotr Szubiakowski wrote:
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Hi,
<br>
we are developing an application where would be great if
multiple host could have access to the same disk. I think that
we can use features like shared disk or direct LUN to attach the
same storage to multiple VM's. However to provide concurrent
access to the resource, there should be a cluster file system
used. The most popular open source cluster file systems are GFS2
and OCFS2. So my questions are:
<br>
<br>
1) Does anyone have share disk between VM's in oVirt? What fs
did You used?
<br>
2) Is it possible to use GFS2 on VM's that are running on oVirt?
Does anyone have run fencing mechanism with ovirt/libvirt?
<br>
<br>
Many thanks,
<br>
Piotr
<br>
_______________________________________________
<br>
Users mailing list
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Users@ovirt.org">Users@ovirt.org</a>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users">http://...
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre wrap="">
<fieldset class="mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated"
href="mailto:Users@ovirt.org">Users@ovirt.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users">http://...
</pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>
--------------060805040100080505090603--
3935
days inactive
3936
days old
16 comments
7 participants
participants (7)
-
Chris Smith -
Eduardo Ramos -
Itamar Heim -
Piotr Szubiakowski -
Shu Ming -
Subhendu Ghosh -
Yuriy Demchenko