[ovirt-users] [RFI] oVirt 3.6 Planning

[Nicolas Ecarnot]

Le 13/09/2014 20:38, Nir Soffer a écrit :
> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Nicolas Ecarnot" <nicolas at ecarnot.net>
>> To: "Nir Soffer" <nsoffer at redhat.com>
>> Cc: users at ovirt.org, "Federico Simoncelli" <fsimonce at redhat.com>
>> Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:24:55 PM
>> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [RFI] oVirt 3.6 Planning
>>
>> Le 13/09/2014 17:34, Nir Soffer a écrit :
>>>> For God's sake, please, prevent "secondary" storage domains (anything
>>>> other than the master, especially iso and export) to completely block
>>>> the whole thing when being unavailable.
>>>> To many users suffered from this in the last two years I participate at
>>>> this mailing list (including me).
>>>
>>> I think this is true for ISO and export domains for some time.
>>
>> In 3.4 at least, this is still true and is a problem.
>> At least, if we can get rid of this and just mark these iso and export
>> domains as unusable, and still do every other non-related operations,
>> this would be very useful.
>>
>>> It will not work for data domains - if you have vms with disks on what you
>>> call "secondary" data domain, how would you migrate these vms to a host
>>> that
>>> cannot see the "secondary" domain?
>>>
>>> In 3.6, there will be no "master" domain, so any data domain will be
>>> important
>>> as any other data domain.
>>>
>>> Maybe what do you like is to have more control on which domains are
>>> critical,
>>> and which are not. A domain which you mark as "non-critical", or
>>> "secondary",
>>> will not cause the host to become non-operational when the host cannot see
>>> this domain.
>>>
>>> So you would not be able to migrate some vms to a host that cannot see the
>>> secondary domain, but since *you* marked it as "secondary", it is not a
>>> problem
>>> for you.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> This proposition is perfect.
>> I don't know whether being able to mark some storage domain as more
>> precious than other will be useful, when their absence won't be a
>> blocker anymore?
>
> The idea is to let you define which storage domains are "required" and
> which are not, lets call them "optional".
>
> If a required storage domain cannot be seen, a host be become
> non-operational.
>
> If an optional storage domain cannot be seen, you will get a warning
> but the host will function normally.
>
> If you try to migrate a vm to a host which cannot see the storage
> domain used by that vm, the operation will fail.
>
> When a "required" storage domain is down, you would be able to
> change it to "optional", and continue to work with the other
> domains in degraded mode. Some vms will not able to run, but
> other vms that do not depend on problem domain will not be
> affected.
>
> I hope that I understood your question correctly.
>
> Nir
>

You did, and the features you described seem great.
Can't wait to see them released!

-- 
Nicolas Ecarnot