Hi, I'm starting over again with a new setup, taking into account what's worked (and not) before. So, things were actually ok with just NFS storage and XenServer before. Then I enabled local storage and added a KVM cluster. It completely broke everything, and by broke, I mean CS3 would spit out blank errors all over the place, could not launch VM's, etc. I was pretty frustrated at that point and blew it away. I've gotten pretty good/quick and blowing away and re-installing CS (and all the hypervisors). One such issue I had previously: http://cloudstack.org/forum/5-installation/11379-losing-all-hope-primary-storage-either-local-or-nfs-does-not-work.html (with a link to a previous issue I had).
My new(ish) plan right now is this. I installed ESXi, but reading the CS docs regarding it, decided against using it. I've now re-installed all my hypervisors in such a manner that I shouldn't need to rely on local storage. Before, I had hacked XenServer to export it's local storage via nfs.. that was problematic to say the least. Here's my latest attempt which I believe will now work: 1. KVM (Centos 6.2) hypervisor with 1TB local disks. 800GB exported as NFS primary storage back for KVM use. 2. XenServer 6.02. Primary on local lan NFS nas. 3. secondary storage on same NFS nas as a different mount. Without enabling local storage, I think this would work, as I now realize practically all of my issues came about when I enabled local storage. Disabling local storage once enabled is also not possible... Thanks, Alex On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> wrote: > Hi, > > I'm using CS 3.0.2 with vSphere 4.1 update1 (paid ESX not ESXi). > I have a single cluster with two nodes and shared ISCSI storage and very > happy with it. > Personally would recommend against local storage as I have noticed vmware > can be very slow using its local hard drive for VM storage as many VM > chewing the same disk is painful. > Also you will not have failover without a shared storage. > Even if you are tight on budget you could put together an NFS or ISCSI > server with a 10-15 disk raid. > > Could you let us know what do you mean "that really seems to mess it up, > is enabling local storage. This tends to just make things horribly > unstable"? Or point me to the bugs you are referring to? > What is unstable? Do you get exceptions? Can't you deploy VMs? > > Regards > > Tamas Monos DDI > +44(0)2034687012 > Chief Technical Office > +44(0)2034687000 > Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 > 7057 > http://www.veber.co.uk > > Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost > Follow us on Facebook: www.facebook.com/veberhost > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > Sent: 22 June 2012 11:30 > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > > Hi Tamas, > > I'm probably stuck with 3.0.2 for now since I decided to use vSphere 5 > (instead of the KVM install I just had). Many of the issues I've had are > actually documented bugs, but since the project is somewhat in limbo I > don't know how long we have to wait. I've been installing and > re-installing in different configs CS 3.0.2 for about a week now, and > finally got it to a sweet spot where it would run just fine with a single > hypervisor. > One of the things that really seems to mess it up, is enabling local > storage. This tends to just make things horribly unstable. I just blew > away my current setup of XenServer+KVM and am going to do another attempt > (But with XenServer and vSphere) with local storage (since both are > purported to support local storage). > I'm sure 3.0.2 runs just fine once it's setup and it's working, but I > just find it very disturbing that one small change can throw the whole > system. I'd be very worried in using it production. > > Thanks, > Alex > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 5:25 PM, Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > I think 3.0.2 is not pre-alpha by far. I can easily run a production > > environment on it with billing integration and customers are happy. > > Nothing is perfect ever but there is always a workaround. If you could > > describe what is unusable or blows up we might be able to help. > > > > Regards > > > > Tamas Monos DDI > > +44(0)2034687012 > > Chief Technical Office > > +44(0)2034687000 > > Veber: The Hosting Specialists Fax +44(0)871 522 > > 7057 > > http://www.veber.co.uk > > > > Follow us on Twitter: www.twitter.com/veberhost Follow us on Facebook: > > www.facebook.com/veberhost > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > > Sent: 22 June 2012 02:33 > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > > Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > > > > That's a funny place for it to show up, imho. It's a system vm. I'm > > pretty sure when I was using the Xen hypervisor it was showing up > > under system vm's. Then again, the 3.x branch is so pre-alpha I don't > > know where stuff will show up anymore. > > > > Any news on when the incubator project is going to be ramped up? > > 3.0.2 is essentially unusable. Just adding another hypervisor to the > > mix causes it to blow up. I did notice a ton of bug fixes, but those > > won't show up in any builds till the incubator project is up and running > I'm guessing. > > > > Thanks, > > Alex > > > > On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 8:38 AM, Edison Su <edison...@citrix.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Alexey Zilber [mailto:alexeyzil...@gmail.com] > > > > Sent: Thursday, June 21, 2012 5:14 PM > > > > To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org > > > > Subject: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. > > > > > > > > Hi All, > > > > > > > > This looks like a bug in CS 3.0.2. I did a clean install. > > > > Everything is > > > > on Centos 6.2. Installed KVM as the first hypervisor in the cluster. > > > > Launched an instance. virsh reports: > > > > > > > > [root@kvm1 init.d]# virsh list > > > > Id Name State > > > > ---------------------------------- > > > > 1 s-1-VM running > > > > 2 v-2-VM running > > > > * 3 r-4-VM running* > > > > 4 i-2-3-VM running > > > > > > > > > > > > #3 above is the system router vm. It does not show up under > > > > 'system vm' > > > > > > Router VM should not be shown up under "system vm". It should be > > > under "zone->network->" > > > > > > > under the Zones. (#1 and #2 do). This is concerning because when I > > > > used > > > > Xen, it reported it correctly. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Alex > > > > > > > > >
