Bug 896554
| Summary: | live storage migration - cannot move vm in up status | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Jakub Libosvar <jlibosva> | ||||
| Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Ayal Baron <abaron> | ||||
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Haim <hateya> | ||||
| Severity: | urgent | Docs Contact: | |||||
| Priority: | unspecified | ||||||
| Version: | 3.2.0 | CC: | acanan, acathrow, amureini, dyasny, iheim, lpeer, mpastern, Rhev-m-bugs, yeylon, ykaul | ||||
| Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | TestBlocker, Triaged, ZStream | ||||
| Target Release: | 3.2.0 | ||||||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||||||
| OS: | Linux | ||||||
| Whiteboard: | storage | ||||||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |||||
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |||||
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||||||
| Last Closed: | 2013-01-23 16:55:35 UTC | Type: | Bug | ||||
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- | ||||
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |||||
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |||||
| oVirt Team: | Storage | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |||||
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |||||
| Embargoed: | |||||||
| Attachments: |
|
||||||
The way I see it, MoveVM is a dead concept, only left there for backwards compatibility. The correct verb to use /should/ be MoveDisk. Of course, if we continue to support MoveVM it should be able to live migrate, but I'd much rather just remove it altogether. PMs/Michael, you input would be appreciated. (In reply to comment #2) > The way I see it, MoveVM is a dead concept, only left there for backwards > compatibility. The correct verb to use /should/ be MoveDisk. > > Of course, if we continue to support MoveVM it should be able to live > migrate, but I'd much rather just remove it altogether. > > PMs/Michael, you input would be appreciated. correct, MoveVM is deprecated, MoveDisk should be used instead, also Jakub, why do you think MoveDisk/MoveVM should succeed while VM is running? afaics this is pretty complex use-case, ayal? (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > The way I see it, MoveVM is a dead concept, only left there for backwards > > compatibility. The correct verb to use /should/ be MoveDisk. > > > > Of course, if we continue to support MoveVM it should be able to live > > migrate, but I'd much rather just remove it altogether. > > > > PMs/Michael, you input would be appreciated. > > correct, MoveVM is deprecated, MoveDisk should be used instead, > also Jakub, why do you think MoveDisk/MoveVM should succeed while VM is > running? afaics this is pretty complex use-case, > > ayal? ah, missed the subject "live storage migration", obviously i'm not up to date with storage features (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) > > The way I see it, MoveVM is a dead concept, only left there for backwards > > compatibility. The correct verb to use /should/ be MoveDisk. > > > > Of course, if we continue to support MoveVM it should be able to live > > migrate, but I'd much rather just remove it altogether. > > > > PMs/Michael, you input would be appreciated. > > correct, MoveVM is deprecated, MoveDisk should be used instead, Michael, sorry for nagging, but I want to be 100% sure - does this mean we can simply drop support for MoveVM altogether? (In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > The way I see it, MoveVM is a dead concept, only left there for backwards > > > compatibility. The correct verb to use /should/ be MoveDisk. > > > > > > Of course, if we continue to support MoveVM it should be able to live > > > migrate, but I'd much rather just remove it altogether. > > > > > > PMs/Michael, you input would be appreciated. > > > > correct, MoveVM is deprecated, MoveDisk should be used instead, > Michael, sorry for nagging, but I want to be 100% sure - does this mean we > can simply drop support for MoveVM altogether? no we can't, in sake of backward compatibility we have to keep it at least four versions after we publicly deprecate it, (and we deprecated it at 3.2 by implementing #883871). Michael - thanks. Implementing this is a large and risky change, which I don't really want to handle in 3.2's timeframe. Proposing postpone to 3.3, need to be discussed with PM/QA reps. Development Management has reviewed and declined this request. You may appeal this decision by reopening this request. (In reply to comment #7) > Michael - thanks. > > Implementing this is a large and risky change, which I don't really want to > handle in 3.2's timeframe. > Proposing postpone to 3.3, need to be discussed with PM/QA reps. MoveVM is deprecated so no point in adding functionality to it. |
Created attachment 680225 [details] Engine log Description of problem: Disks cannot be moved to another storage domain while vm is running and move vm is sent via API 2013-01-17 15:12:40,305 WARN [org.ovirt.engine.core.bll.MoveVmCommand] (ajp-/127.0.0.1:8702-15) [1345de24] CanDoAction of action MoveVm failed. Reasons:VAR__ACTION__MOVE,VAR__TYPE__VM,ACTION_TYPE_FAILED_VM_IS_NOT_DOWN 2013-01-17 15:12:40,323 ERROR [org.ovirt.engine.api.restapi.resource.AbstractBackendResource] (ajp-/127.0.0.1:8702-15) Operation Failed: [Cannot move VM. At least one of the VMs is not down.] Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rhevm-3.2.0-4.el6ev.noarch How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Have two data domains 2. Start VM 3. Move vm to second domain Actual results: Forbidden Expected results: Succeeds Additional info: It is not the regression, happens in rhevm-3.1.0-41.el6ev.noarch as well.