Bug 1034871 - [RFE] Allow migration configuration values to be set per VM from engine.
Summary: [RFE] Allow migration configuration values to be set per VM from engine.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1252426
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: RFEs
Version: 3.3.0
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
: ---
Assignee: Nobody
QA Contact: Shai Revivo
URL:
Whiteboard: virt
: 1113945 (view as bug list)
Depends On: 994391 1115171
Blocks: 1004101
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-11-26 16:03 UTC by Lee Yarwood
Modified: 2015-08-11 11:50 UTC (History)
10 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-08-11 11:50:45 UTC
oVirt Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
sherold: Triaged+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Lee Yarwood 2013-11-26 16:03:33 UTC
1. Proposed title of this feature request  
Allow migration configuration values to be set per VM from engine.
  
2. Who is the customer behind the request?  
N/A
  
3. What is the nature and description of the request?
At  present migration configuration variables are set host wide within vdsm.conf and apply to all guests being migrated from a given host. To allow better control of migrations VDSM should allow these to be set per VM and if possible this should be exposed by engine.
  
4. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here)
To allow better control of migrations on a per VM basis.
  
5. How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here)  
Extend VDSM to allow these variables to be set per VM.
Extend engine to allow a user to adjust these values per VM.

6. For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented.
Can a user set a given migration config variable from engine and have this used by VDSM?
  
7. Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla?
No.
  
8. Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)? 
RHEV 3.4
  
9. Is the sales team involved in this request and do they have any additional input?  
No
  
10. List any affected packages or components. 
vdsm and ovirt-engine-{api,backend}.
  
11. Would the customer be able to assist in testing this functionality if implemented?
Yes GSS can help with testing this.

Comment 1 Michal Skrivanek 2014-01-24 12:20:35 UTC
part is implemented by bug 994391

Lee, what other values you'd like to see?

Comment 2 Lee Yarwood 2014-01-27 13:35:06 UTC
(In reply to Michal Skrivanek from comment #1)
> part is implemented by bug 994391
> 
> Lee, what other values you'd like to see?

Migration bandwidth is the most important but really any of the timeout variables would also be useful for larger guest migrations.

Comment 3 Michal Skrivanek 2014-02-03 12:49:08 UTC
list of current parameters affecting migration to consider to expose in UI, in order of importance:
migration_max_bandwidth
max_outgoing_migrations
migration_downtime (configurable in 3.4)
migration_downtime_delay
migration_progress_timeout
migration_downtime_steps
migration_max_time_per_gib_mem
migration_destination_timeout
migration_listener_timeout

Comment 4 Michal Skrivanek 2014-06-30 09:28:06 UTC
*** Bug 1113945 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 5 Nir Yechiel 2014-07-07 15:26:28 UTC

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1043809 ***

Comment 6 Scott Herold 2014-07-11 13:53:03 UTC
Reopening, as this needs to address a per-VM setting, which will not be fully covered by vdsm.conf settings.

Comment 8 Itamar Heim 2015-03-22 15:46:46 UTC
Closing old bugs. If this issue is still relevant/important in current version, please re-open the bug.

Comment 9 Michal Skrivanek 2015-05-05 10:36:36 UTC
I think this is still relevant, especially since recently there are more and more cases when our defaults do not work well enough (e.g. 1Gb assumption/bandwidth limitation vs 10Gb link)

Comment 11 Michal Skrivanek 2015-08-11 11:50:45 UTC
we will expose meaningful parameters in bug 1252426 as well as improve the behavior

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1252426 ***


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.