You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@cloudstack.apache.org by Darren Shepherd <da...@gmail.com> on 2013/10/31 18:47:41 UTC
why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
Darren
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Kelcey Jamison Damage <ke...@backbonetechnology.com>.
Well perhaps it should be a checkbox on the first zone wizard page, have it show up when the user selects 'use local storage'. it could say 'allow system VMs on local storage'.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Cc: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 11:46:32 AM
Subject: Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have to turn this setting on. If I have no shared storage, then system VMs won't deploy with out this parameter. It's just seems like a useless setting that might have been added because there is something else in the system that isn't working right.
Darren
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <ke...@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
>
> That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
>
> In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would be taken.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
> Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
>
> Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
> somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
> here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
> situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
>
> Darren
>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
basic networks dont really require that level of flexibility. Sure you
suffer a small dns/dhcp outage... So it definitely depends on the purpose
of the cloud, and services its going to provide. We cant negate the
flexibility local storage system vm's provides.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Well, certainly you don't want system vms using local storage by
> default. How would you live migrate them for host maintenance? I
> assume you mean that when you set up a zone and check 'local storage',
> and it pops up the big long thing stating "make sure you set the
> system vms to local as well in the global config", that pop up should
> not exist and happen by default. But the user has already selected
> local storage in that case.
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I agree, it was probably an afterthought. I was just justifying the
> desired
> > effect not the flag/workaround.
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Darren Shepherd <
> > darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have
> >> to turn this setting on. If I have no shared storage, then system VMs
> >> won't deploy with out this parameter. It's just seems like a useless
> >> setting that might have been added because there is something else in
> the
> >> system that isn't working right.
> >>
> >> Darren
> >>
> >> > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <
> >> kelcey@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the
> >> system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If
> the
> >> state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
> >> >
> >> > In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the
> database
> >> even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action
> would
> >> be taken.
> >> >
> >> > ----- Original Message -----
> >> >
> >> > From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
> >> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> >> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
> >> > Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
> >> >
> >> > Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why
> would
> >> > somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the
> idea
> >> > here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host
> failure
> >> > situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
> >> >
> >> > Darren
> >> >
> >>
>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Marcus Sorensen <sh...@gmail.com>.
Well, certainly you don't want system vms using local storage by
default. How would you live migrate them for host maintenance? I
assume you mean that when you set up a zone and check 'local storage',
and it pops up the big long thing stating "make sure you set the
system vms to local as well in the global config", that pop up should
not exist and happen by default. But the user has already selected
local storage in that case.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 1:09 PM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree, it was probably an afterthought. I was just justifying the desired
> effect not the flag/workaround.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Darren Shepherd <
> darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have
>> to turn this setting on. If I have no shared storage, then system VMs
>> won't deploy with out this parameter. It's just seems like a useless
>> setting that might have been added because there is something else in the
>> system that isn't working right.
>>
>> Darren
>>
>> > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <
>> kelcey@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the
>> system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the
>> state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
>> >
>> > In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database
>> even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would
>> be taken.
>> >
>> > ----- Original Message -----
>> >
>> > From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
>> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
>> > Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
>> >
>> > Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
>> > somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
>> > here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
>> > situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
>> >
>> > Darren
>> >
>>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
I agree, it was probably an afterthought. I was just justifying the desired
effect not the flag/workaround.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 11:46 AM, Darren Shepherd <
darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
> I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have
> to turn this setting on. If I have no shared storage, then system VMs
> won't deploy with out this parameter. It's just seems like a useless
> setting that might have been added because there is something else in the
> system that isn't working right.
>
> Darren
>
> > On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <
> kelcey@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
> >
> > That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the
> system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the
> state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
> >
> > In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database
> even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would
> be taken.
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> >
> > From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
> > Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
> >
> > Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
> > somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
> > here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
> > situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
> >
> > Darren
> >
>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Darren Shepherd <da...@gmail.com>.
I just find it annoying setting up a zone with local storage that I have to turn this setting on. If I have no shared storage, then system VMs won't deploy with out this parameter. It's just seems like a useless setting that might have been added because there is something else in the system that isn't working right.
Darren
> On Oct 31, 2013, at 10:52 AM, Kelcey Jamison Damage <ke...@backbonetechnology.com> wrote:
>
> That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
>
> In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would be taken.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
> Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
>
> Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
> somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
> here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
> situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
>
> Darren
>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Kelcey Jamison Damage <ke...@backbonetechnology.com>.
That's a good point. I know the system VMs are auto created if the system is aware of their state being either 'Destroyed', 'Expunged'. If the state is 'Starting', or 'Started'/'Running' then no actions are taken.
In your scenario, the system VM would still be 'Started' in the database even though communication is lost to the host, so no automatic action would be taken.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Darren Shepherd" <da...@gmail.com>
To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2013 10:47:41 AM
Subject: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
Darren
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
'shared local storage' should be read as shared storage :)
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:51 AM, Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you might not have shared local storage in your cloud. so having to add
> shared storage for the sole purpose of supporting system vm's would be
> painful.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Darren Shepherd <
> darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
>> somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
>> here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
>> situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
>>
>> Darren
>>
>
>
Re: why system.vm.use.local.storage?
Posted by Ahmad Emneina <ae...@gmail.com>.
you might not have shared local storage in your cloud. so having to add
shared storage for the sole purpose of supporting system vm's would be
painful.
On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 10:47 AM, Darren Shepherd <
darren.s.shepherd@gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do we have the configuration system.vm.use.local.storage? Why would
> somebody care if they systemvm is on local storage? I'm guessing the idea
> here is if it's on local storage we can't bring it back in a host failure
> situation? But don't we just recreate the systemvm?
>
> Darren
>