[ovirt-devel] [ovirt-users] design flaw in ovirt

Vinzenz Feenstra vfeenstr at redhat.com
Fri Jun 20 13:32:25 UTC 2014

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_Virtualization/3.3/html/Administration_Guide/Virtual_Machine_Networks_and_Optional_Networks.html
>> 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.


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

More information about the Devel mailing list