Hi Vangelis and Neal, we discussed it and my and Klaus' opinion is that the patch is valid. When Ganeti manages a given VG on its own, it should check if there any orphan LVs there. But if the administrator uses asks Ganeti to create a LV for a particular disk in another VG, then Ganeti shouldn't manage this VG, just use it.
Best regards, Petr On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Vangelis Koukis <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 22, 2014 at 08:05:50pm +0200, Neal Oakey wrote: > > Hi Klaus, > > Hi Vangelis, > > > > shouldn't "--reserved-lvs" be used for this? > > because you can use different VGs like vg_main & vg_ssd > > > > Hello Neal, > > my understanding is that --reserved-lvs is meant for LVs *inside* > Ganeti's set VG name. From the manpage: > > "The option --reserved-lvs specifies a list (comma-separated) of > logical volume group names (regular expressions) that will be ignored by > the > cluster verify operation. This is useful if the volume group used for > Ganeti > is shared with the system for other uses. Note that it's not recommended > to > create and mark as ignored logical volume names which match Ganeti's own > name > format (starting with UUID and then .diskN), as this option only skips > the > verification, but not the actual use of the names given. " > > > And if I see this right this patch would now ignore vg_ssd (assuming > > vg_main is the vg set via --vg-name) > > Or am I wrong? > > > > One can specify the VG to use when creating a disk, independently of the > set VG > name, but it's not obvious to me that this gives Ganeti the right to > complain > about whatever other LVs may already exist in this VG. To put it > differently: > If I specify vg_name in the cluster config, I'm giving full control of > this VG > to Ganeti, which can then complain for every LV in it which it doesn't know > about. But if I specifically ask for a new disk to be created inside a VG, > this > doesn't imply that all other LVs in this VG should be handled by Ganeti. > > Perhaps a member of the core team can comment more extensively on this. > > Best regards, > Vangelis. > > > Greetings > > Neal > > > > Am 21.08.2014 um 16:56 schrieb 'Klaus Aehlig' via ganeti-devel: > > > Hello Vangelis, > > > > > > thanks for your report. As far as I can see, your > > > analysis is correct. Can you please... > > > > > >> This one-line patch against stable-2.10 fixes the problem: > > >> $ git diff > > >> diff --git a/lib/backend.py b/lib/backend.py > > >> index e638e1c..3c7469c 100644 > > >> --- a/lib/backend.py > > >> +++ b/lib/backend.py > > >> @@ -1055,7 +1055,7 @@ def VerifyNode(what, cluster_name, > all_hvparams): > > >> > > >> if constants.NV_LVLIST in what and vm_capable: > > >> try: > > >> - val = GetVolumeList(utils.ListVolumeGroups().keys()) > > >> + val = GetVolumeList([what[constants.NV_LVLIST]]) > > >> except RPCFail, err: > > >> val = str(err) > > >> result[constants.NV_LVLIST] = val > > > > > > ...send out that patch officially? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Klaus > > > > > > >
