Typically people would not switch deployment models, in production, without testing on some staging/preproduction environment. Alexey has a valid gripe here in that certain flags can cause unwanted or even buggy behavior.
On 6/22/12 7:39 AM, "Alexey Zilber" <alexeyzil...@gmail.com> wrote: >Hi, > > Yes, that solution did not work. I think though in that particular case >the issue was different (it was about 4-5 installs back). The only >service >offering that seems relevant is a compute offering that uses either shared >or local storage. I had both types setup and neither worked, so I think >there was something further wrong with that particular setup. Local >storage just doesn't work for me. I believe I did get it running just >once, but it wasn't stable. I've also had issues with the router vm >coming >up on local storage.. go figure. > I'm curious to see if anyone is actually using local storage with >multiple hosts and/or hypervisors. Either way, things seem to work much >better when local storage is not enabled. I should be done with a new >setup without local storage, we'll see how that turns out. > >-Alex > >On Fri, Jun 22, 2012 at 9:25 PM, Tamas Monos <tam...@veber.co.uk> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> Have you tried the solution for your local storage issue that 'gemiller' >> suggested in that thread you have opened? >> There is no problem enabling local storage. The reason it is not working >> with your setup because you not seem to have a Service Offering to use >> local storage just default ones which are for shared I guess. >> >> CS is not a walk in the park from the admin point of view. Especially >>for >> first timers so if you just started using it I'd highly recommend >>spending >> time more understanding it at the beginning before trying to do >>something >> that you think or feel should work because it might not. >> >> 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 13:40 >> To: cloudstack-users@incubator.apache.org >> Subject: Re: CS 3.0.2 does not report router system vm. >> >> 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 >> > > > >> > > >> > > >> > >> > >> >>
