Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-11-02 Thread Sven Kieske 
On 31/10/16 08:59, Yedidyah Bar David wrote:
> Not sure how you got this impression from current discussion. On the
> contrary - people are working on this, and it was planned to be completed
> in 4.0, but eventually postponed.

This is really interesting.

But don't you need to remove the master storage domain concept for this,
plus spm?

The RFE for this was closed as "wontfix":

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1080372

Am I mixing things up?

It would be nice if someone could clarify this.


-- 
Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Regards

Sven Kieske

Systemadministrator
Mittwald CM Service GmbH & Co. KG
Königsberger Straße 6
32339 Espelkamp
T: +495772 293100
F: +495772 29
https://www.mittwald.de
Geschäftsführer: Robert Meyer
St.Nr.: 331/5721/1033, USt-IdNr.: DE814773217, HRA 6640, AG Bad Oeynhausen
Komplementärin: Robert Meyer Verwaltungs GmbH, HRB 13260, AG Bad Oeynhausen



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-31 Thread Sebastian Greco 
Thx for the advice Barak!

I was looking for a roadmap to follow, like the "trello" one used for the
openshift project https://trello.com/b/nlLwlKoz/atomicopenshift-roadmap but
I was not able to find one. I love to hear things like the "SPM was planned
to be removed" as it gives me a better understanding of the direction the
project has. Any good resource to follow this and other things to come?

Thanks again for the help!


Sebastián Greco
IT Consultant
Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra
www.essiprojects.com
*www.essiprojects.co.uk *

Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34 977
230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain
120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED *London*
 UK

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:36 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:

> On 31 October 2016 at 09:28, Sebastian Greco 
> wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> VMs are not
> >> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y
> >
> >
> > Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from
> RH
> > points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I
> can't
> > argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of
> > companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards
> this
> > solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are
> > missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).
>
> Please don't take my statement as being official in any way. Despite
> writing from a @redhat.com address, I'm writing my personal thoughts.
>
> I have stated that I've no data to back what I've said. This is all
> just a guess based on what I know of oVirt/RHV development processes.
> I'm most certainly not someone who makes decisions about any of theses
> things.
>
> > I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far
> from
> > my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using
> > RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers
> (following
> > the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like
> this
> > and dismiss this solution sooner than later.
>
> Please do not take my statement as indicating of any conscious design
> decision. I was just trying to gauge where oVirt/RHV development might
> head given that RedHat typically puts its resources where its current
> and potential customers tell it do. Case to point:
>
> 1. Ephemeral local state VMs are supported with the scrathcpad hook because
>its been shown to be useful for Build/Test/CI systems.
> 2. Singular host with local storage and non-migrating VMs is supported for
>cases where one simply wants resource convergence.
>
> The 3rd case we're discussing here where the same host can run both
> local persistent VMs and migrating ones had not been supported so far.
> I'm __guessing__ that this is because demand seen so far did not
> outweigh
> the technical difficulty to achieve this (Just to indicate the difficulty,
> the SPM was planned to be removed in 4.0, it did not make it).
>
> > Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by
> > design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this
> > thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)
>
> This is definitely not the bottom line, I way trying to guess and
> explain why this __did_not__ happen __so_far__. I never meant to say
> it will not.
>
> If you are a RHV reseller or integrator, your input is very valuable
> for RedHat. While this list is one way to reach some RedHat
> developers, you should certainly make an effort to use other channels
> available to you to make your input known.
>
>
> --
> Barak Korren
> bkor...@redhat.com
> RHEV-CI Team
>
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-31 Thread Barak Korren 
On 31 October 2016 at 09:28, Sebastian Greco  wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:
>>
>> VMs are not
>> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y
>
>
> Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from RH
> points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I can't
> argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of
> companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards this
> solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are
> missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).

Please don't take my statement as being official in any way. Despite
writing from a @redhat.com address, I'm writing my personal thoughts.

I have stated that I've no data to back what I've said. This is all
just a guess based on what I know of oVirt/RHV development processes.
I'm most certainly not someone who makes decisions about any of theses
things.

> I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far from
> my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using
> RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers (following
> the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like this
> and dismiss this solution sooner than later.

Please do not take my statement as indicating of any conscious design
decision. I was just trying to gauge where oVirt/RHV development might
head given that RedHat typically puts its resources where its current
and potential customers tell it do. Case to point:

1. Ephemeral local state VMs are supported with the scrathcpad hook because
   its been shown to be useful for Build/Test/CI systems.
2. Singular host with local storage and non-migrating VMs is supported for
   cases where one simply wants resource convergence.

The 3rd case we're discussing here where the same host can run both
local persistent VMs and migrating ones had not been supported so far.
I'm __guessing__ that this is because demand seen so far did not
outweigh
the technical difficulty to achieve this (Just to indicate the difficulty,
the SPM was planned to be removed in 4.0, it did not make it).

> Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by
> design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this
> thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)

This is definitely not the bottom line, I way trying to guess and
explain why this __did_not__ happen __so_far__. I never meant to say
it will not.

If you are a RHV reseller or integrator, your input is very valuable
for RedHat. While this list is one way to reach some RedHat
developers, you should certainly make an effort to use other channels
available to you to make your input known.


-- 
Barak Korren
bkor...@redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-31 Thread Sebastian Greco 
Maybe I missread, sorry. I interpreted that by design this was not a
feature and that it was not in any roadmap as current customers don't need
it, or at least I understood that from previous posts.

Happy to know this is planned to be a feature! :)

Again guys, thanks a lot for the help!


Sebastián Greco
IT Consultant
Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra
www.essiprojects.com
*www.essiprojects.co.uk *

Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34 977
230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain
120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED *London*
 UK

On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 8:59 AM, Yedidyah Bar David  wrote:

> On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Sebastian Greco
>  wrote:
> >
> > On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> VMs are not
> >> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y
> >
> >
> > Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from
> RH
> > points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I
> can't
> > argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of
> > companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards
> this
> > solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are
> > missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).
> >
> > I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far
> from
> > my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using
> > RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers
> (following
> > the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like
> this
> > and dismiss this solution sooner than later.
> >
> > Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by
> > design it is not going to happen",
>
> Not sure how you got this impression from current discussion. On the
> contrary - people are working on this, and it was planned to be completed
> in 4.0, but eventually postponed.
>
> Best,
>
> > and I wouldn't like to convert this
> > thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)
> >
> > Thx again guys for the help,
> >
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Users mailing list
> > Users@ovirt.org
> > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Didi
>
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-31 Thread Yedidyah Bar David 
On Mon, Oct 31, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Sebastian Greco
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:
>>
>> VMs are not
>> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y
>
>
> Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from RH
> points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I can't
> argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of
> companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards this
> solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers are
> missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).
>
> I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far from
> my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using
> RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers (following
> the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like this
> and dismiss this solution sooner than later.
>
> Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by
> design it is not going to happen",

Not sure how you got this impression from current discussion. On the
contrary - people are working on this, and it was planned to be completed
in 4.0, but eventually postponed.

Best,

> and I wouldn't like to convert this
> thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)
>
> Thx again guys for the help,
>
>
>
> ___
> Users mailing list
> Users@ovirt.org
> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>



-- 
Didi
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-31 Thread Sebastian Greco 
On Sun, Oct 30, 2016 at 10:42 AM, Barak Korren  wrote:

> VMs are not
> very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When y
>

Thx for the answsers. I see that it's the second time that someone from RH
points out that customers are not interested in this feature. While I can't
argue with that, what I do can say is that "non-customers" (most of
companies out there using vsphere or hyper-v) feel dissapointed towards
this solution for things like this one (for this case, 2 of my customers
are missing this, we are deploying RHV to one of them this week).

I don't see how this lack of flexibility is something good, and so far from
my experience with customers which I'm trying to convince to start using
RHV, when they finally do agree to start with one or two servers (following
the RHCI roadmap evolution to the hybrid cloud), they see things like this
and dismiss this solution sooner than later.

Anyways, question has been answer "yes, is technically possible but by
design it is not going to happen", and I wouldn't like to convert this
thread or abuse your kindness deviating the subject :)

Thx again guys for the help,
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-30 Thread Barak Korren 
On 27 October 2016 at 14:58, Sebastian Greco  wrote:
> Ohh thx for the answer :) That's why the running VMs on that particular
> storage would only run on that host. One can do that in other hypervisors
> like vsphere or hyper-v. It would be a nice thing to have in rhv too imho.
>

Well, you can partially do this, with the scratch-pad hook, if you
don't care about the local data going away when the VM shuts down.

https://github.com/oVirt/vdsm/tree/master/vdsm_hooks/scratchpad

We've been successfully using this in ovirt CI to keep intermediate
build process I/O out of our central storage.

It seems to me that short-lived non-migrating but stateful VMs are not
very interesting as a use case for RHV customers. When you run you
databases and applications on RHV, it seems to me you typically want
your data to stick around and your VMs to survive a hypervisor crash.
Then again, I do not have any data to substantiate or negate this
claim.


-- 
Barak Korren
bkor...@redhat.com
RHEV-CI Team
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-27 Thread Gianluca Cecchi 
On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 1:58 PM, Sebastian Greco 
wrote:

> Ohh thx for the answer :) That's why the running VMs on that particular
> storage would only run on that host. One can do that in other hypervisors
> like vsphere or hyper-v. It would be a nice thing to have in rhv too imho.
>
>
>
Asked many times...
Latest relevant thread just before 4.0 release with some technical details
here:

http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/users/2016-May/039772.html
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

Re: [ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-27 Thread Sebastian Greco 
Ohh thx for the answer :) That's why the running VMs on that particular
storage would only run on that host. One can do that in other hypervisors
like vsphere or hyper-v. It would be a nice thing to have in rhv too imho.


On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Elad Ben Aharon 
wrote:

> By design, host local storage is accessible from the host itself only and
> that's why it cannot be used in shared storage Data Centres.
>
> On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 9:59 AM, Sebastian Greco 
> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there a technical reason for not being able to use the local host
>> storage if that host is already in a cluster with shared storage?
>>
>> For instance, if a user has a server with with a lot of storage and he
>> wants to use that storage for non HA VMs that will only run over that host
>> while, that host is also part of a cluster running VMs in a shared storage.
>>
>> If there's no technical reason/limitation behind this and this is a
>> design choice, do you consider this to be in a roadmap?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> Sebastián Greco
>> IT Consultant
>> Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra
>> www.essiprojects.com
>> *www.essiprojects.co.uk *
>>
>> Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34
>> 977 230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain
>> 120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED
>> *London* UK
>>
>> ___
>> Users mailing list
>> Users@ovirt.org
>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>>
>>
>
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users

[ovirt-users] Local storage & shared in same cluster

2016-10-27 Thread Sebastian Greco 
Hi,

Is there a technical reason for not being able to use the local host
storage if that host is already in a cluster with shared storage?

For instance, if a user has a server with with a lot of storage and he
wants to use that storage for non HA VMs that will only run over that host
while, that host is also part of a cluster running VMs in a shared storage.

If there's no technical reason/limitation behind this and this is a design
choice, do you consider this to be in a roadmap?

Thanks!

Sebastián Greco
IT Consultant
Cloud Computing - Red Hat - VMware - Zimbra
www.essiprojects.com
*www.essiprojects.co.uk *

Pl. Prim, 4-5 Pral 2a · T:+34 977 221 182 · M: +34 619 985 161 F: +34 977
230 170 · 43001 Tarragona Spain
120 Pall Mall · T:+44 207 101 0778 · F: +44 843 538 3112 · SW1Y 5ED *London*
 UK
___
Users mailing list
Users@ovirt.org
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users