> 3. What is the nature and description of the request? Currently, when a VM is paused due to storage domain latency/failure, the VMs are attempted to be unpaused only once (after a certain interval). We would like to be able to set the number of attempts and the frequency of attempts. > 4. Why does the customer need this? (List the business requirements here) Our storage domain experienced a failed HDD and caused latency to spike. VMs were paused as expected, but not all VMs were unpaused when the storage domain recovered. We were told that VMs are attempted to be unpaused only once (therefore manual intervention is required after the initial/sole attempt). Some of our VMs have high uptime SLAs, so we cannot rely on manual intervention to unpause VMs at all hours of the day. > 5. How would the customer like to achieve this? (List the functional requirements here) A GUI interface for these features would be overkill. Tunable parameters via command line (i.e., `engine-config`) would be acceptable and logical. > 6. For each functional requirement listed, specify how Red Hat and the customer can test to confirm the requirement is successfully implemented. In a test environment (similar to our setup) we could simulate a HDD failure to cause the storage domain to go latent. Additionally, we could throttle the available bandwidth to the storage domain to cause latency. > 7. Is there already an existing RFE upstream or in Red Hat Bugzilla? None that I am aware of. > 8. Does the customer have any specific timeline dependencies and which release would they like to target (i.e. RHEL5, RHEL6)? Sooner rather than later, RHEV 3.5 > 9. Is the sales team involved in this request and do they have any additional input? N/A > 10. List any affected packages or components. RHEV-M > 11. Would the customer be able to assist in testing this functionality if implemented? We only have a production RHEV environment and do not have additional hardware to create a test platform, so we would not be able to assist.
Could we move this to RHEV 3.6?
Yaniv, I think this RFE is a duplicate of this: bz#1230788. What do you think?
(In reply to Marina from comment #7) > Yaniv, > I think this RFE is a duplicate of this: bz#1230788. > > What do you think? That is correct. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1230788 ***