For CLVM, the copy template from secondary to primary and create volume from template logic is handled by CloudStackPrimaryDataStoreDriverImpl->copyAsync, not in AncientDataMotionStrategy You can check the code: 4fb459355337c874a10f47c0224af72d6fef1ff2.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:shadow...@gmail.com] > Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:07 PM > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: CLVM broken on master > > I think if we can change this line: > > if ((srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE) && > (destData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && > destData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary)) { > > to something like: > > if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && > srcData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Image && > destData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary) { > > Maybe that will work? That way it's strictly secondary -> primary templates, > not primary->primary templates. > > Alternatively we could put it back to where it was: > > if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && srcDataStore > instanceof NfsTO && destData.getDataStore().getRole() == > DataStoreRole.Primary) { > > But your patch on the reviewboard removes NfsTO, and I'm assuming the > idea was to work towards getting away from NFS-specific secondary storage. > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > I ran that through my tester, it didn't like it. That actually kept > > the system vms from starting. Since CopyCommand is used for both > > template to template and template to primary, it seems that the > > original template copy is fine but now this catches the case where the > > source template is on primary and we are making a root disk. > > copyTemplateToPrimaryStorage has: > > > > if (!(imageStore instanceof NfsTO)) { > > return new CopyCmdAnswer("unsupported protocol"); > > } > > > > we should be calling 'cloneVolumeFromBaseTemplate', but the original > > if statement is now too loose. I'll play with it a bit and see if I > > can suggest a solution that works. > > > > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,178 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] > > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Request:Seq 1-829816935: { Cmd , > > MgmtId: 52241639751, via: 1, Ver: v1, Flags: 100011, > > > [{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCommand":{"srcTO":{"org. > a > > pache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"bf53a7c6-1fed-1 > > 1e3-a1ff-000c29d82947","origUrl":"http://download.cloud.com/templates/ > > 4.2/systemvmtemplate-2013-06-12-master- > kvm.qcow2.bz2","uuid":"bf53a7c6 > > -1fed-11e3-a1ff-000c29d82947","id":3,"format":"QCOW2","accountId":1,"c > > > hecksum":"6cea42b2633841648040becb588bd8f0","hvm":false,"displayText": > > "SystemVM Template > > (KVM)","imageDataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryData > > StoreTO":{"uuid":"8932daaf-272c-45c9-a078-d601dfc5ca56","id":1,"poolTy > > pe":"Filesystem","host":"172.17.10.10","path":"/var/lib/libvirt/images > > ","port":0}},"name":"routing-3","hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"destTO":{"or > > g.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"0c15b340-228b- > > 48f1-88c4- > b717ad08d4e3","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.c > > loudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"8932daaf-272c-45c9-a > > 078-d601dfc5ca56","id":1,"poolType":"Filesystem","host":"172.17.10.10" > > ,"path":"/var/lib/libvirt/images","port":0}},"name":"ROOT-1","size":0, > > "volumeId":2,"vmName":"s-1- > VM","accountId":1,"format":"QCOW2","id":2," > > hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"executeInSequence":false,"wait":0}}] > > } > > > > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,179 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] > > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Processing command: > > org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCommand > > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,179 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] > > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 1-829816935: { Ans: , MgmtId: > > 52241639751, via: 1, Ver: v1, Flags: 10, > > > [{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCmdAnswer":{"result":fals > > e,"details":"unsupported > > protocol","wait":0}}] } > > > > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, SuichII, Christopher > > <chris.su...@netapp.com> wrote: > >> Hm, interesting. > >> > >> Since nothing else in the if/else if series there depends on the src being > >> a > template, I'd imagine it would be safe to just have the check be: > >> > >> } else if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && > >> destDataStore.getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary) { > >> > >> In hindsight, adding the check for the destination being a template was > just overkill and shouldn't have been added. So, if that fixes your problem, I > believe it is in line with that Edison and I were doing with the storage > subsystem, however, we should check with him as well. > >> > >> -- > >> Chris Suich > >> chris.su...@netapp.com<mailto:chris.su...@netapp.com> > >> NetApp Software Engineer > >> Data Center Platforms - Cloud Solutions Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat > >> > >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Marcus Sorensen > <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> > >> Actually, I don't think that will fix this (though it probably fixes > >> something :-) > >> > >> The issue I'm having is that we went from 'if source is a template on > >> nfs and destination is primary storage' to 'if source is a template > >> and destination is a template on primary storage'. We aren't copying > >> 'template on secondary' -> 'template on primary', with CLVM we copy > >> 'template on secondary' -> 'root disk on primary', since it's > >> wasteful and slow to copy a thin template (say a 50G img of size > >> 500MB) to a template on primary that's 50G, and then copy that 50G > >> primary template to another 50G primary root disk, since the primary > >> storage is neither thin nor clone-able. > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Marcus Sorensen > <shadow...@gmail.com<mailto:shadow...@gmail.com>> wrote: > >> Ok, let me test it. > >> > >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM, SuichII, Christopher > >> <chris.su...@netapp.com<mailto:chris.su...@netapp.com>> wrote: > >> Oh, I noticed this and created a fix, which I thought I already had > submitted since it was a part of the storage refactoring a couple weeks back. > I'll post the patch for review now. > >> > >> -- > >> Chris Suich > >> chris.su...@netapp.com<mailto:chris.su...@netapp.com> > >> NetApp Software Engineer > >> Data Center Platforms - Cloud Solutions Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat > >> > >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Marcus Sorensen <shadow...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Just posting this to dev for visibility. > >> > >> I think commit 180cfa19 broke CLVM primary storage for KVM. I'm > >> failing VM deploy from template. I've been building a 'sanity check' > >> test that focuses on the KVM specific suff (tests storage types and > >> supported host OS for now), and this bubbled up. > >> > >> Read more at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4887 > >> > >>
