[Users] Is there a way to force remove a host?

[Itamar Heim]

On 09/22/2012 11:19 PM, Eli Mesika wrote:
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Douglas Landgraf" <dougsland at redhat.com>
>> To: "Dominic Kaiser" <dominic at bostonvineyard.org>
>> Cc: "Eli Mesika" <emesika at redhat.com>, users at ovirt.org, "Robert Middleswarth" <robert at 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.

shouldn't foreign keys protect against this?
(if not cascade deletes which i remember caused some issues with locks)

> 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
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>