Bug 1120858
Summary: | [RFE] Option to disable fencing for a cluster | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Scott Herold <sherold> | |
Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Martin Perina <mperina> | |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | sefi litmanovich <slitmano> | |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | ||
Priority: | high | |||
Version: | 3.4.0 | CC: | adahms, bazulay, dfediuck, ecohen, gklein, howey.vernon, iheim, lpeer, oourfali, pstehlik, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, sherold, yeylon | |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature | |
Target Release: | 3.5.0 | |||
Hardware: | Unspecified | |||
OS: | Unspecified | |||
Whiteboard: | infra | |||
Fixed In Version: | ovirt-3.5.0_rc1.1 | Doc Type: | Enhancement | |
Doc Text: |
This enhancement adds the ability to disable fencing for a cluster. This allows system administrators who are aware that certain hosts in a cluster may experience temporary connection issues to disable and re-enable fencing when performing maintenance on a machine.
|
Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | ||||
: | 1188504 (view as bug list) | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-02-11 18:06:20 UTC | Type: | Bug | |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | ||
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | ||
oVirt Team: | Infra | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | ||
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | ||
Embargoed: | ||||
Bug Depends On: | ||||
Bug Blocks: | 1084611, 1110176, 1142923, 1156165, 1188504 |
Description
Scott Herold
2014-07-17 21:29:20 UTC
What are the implications on HA vms ? On host level we have "disable fencing" checkbox - which means "do not run HA vms on this host" , among other things. I assume this policy will not have any effect on the HA vms whatsoever ? Barak - I don't think this should affect running VMs. If a user disables fencing at the cluster level, they need to assume a level of risk knowing they have HA VMs configured. What is the current behaviour for disabling fencing at a host level? Is it possible to: 1) Start an HA VM (New or Existing) on that host 2) Live Migrate a running VM to that host Is there a mechanism that we can "easily" use to provide a message to users when attempting a now invalid action stating "HA/Fencing is disabled for this cluster, so VM operations on HA VMs are currently limited" (In reply to Scott Herold from comment #2) > Barak - I don't think this should affect running VMs. If a user disables > fencing at the cluster level, they need to assume a level of risk knowing > they have HA VMs configured. What is the current behaviour for disabling > fencing at a host level? Is it possible to: > > 1) Start an HA VM (New or Existing) on that host > 2) Live Migrate a running VM to that host > Barak - it seems like there is no such logic at the moment. Asked both Eli and Omer regarding that. > Is there a mechanism that we can "easily" use to provide a message to users > when attempting a now invalid action stating "HA/Fencing is disabled for > this cluster, so VM operations on HA VMs are currently limited" I think we should give that as a question mark next to this setting, specifying that if you disable fencing on this cluster then HA VMs that run on a host that isn't reachable won't be restarted anywhere else. Does that make sense? CC-ing Doron as well, to keep him in the loop. In addition for that, we can add an alert saying that "Fencing is disabled on cluster XXX. HA VMs running on a non-responsive host will not be restarted elsewhere". Scott - please ACK what's written in this comment, and in Comment #3. Ack Comment 3 and Comment 4 I really like the Cluster Alert idea. Makes it more obvious to the user and less likely to be overlooked. Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2015-0158.html |