Thanks for the clarification, is there a bug tracking this in libvirt
already?
Actually I don't think there is one, so feel free to file one
I took the liberty of doing so:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1208588
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 6:11 PM, Daniel P. Berrange
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good solution
currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared storage.
I'm curious what Daniel meant by saying that marking the disk shareable is
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 01:33:26PM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes
are
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good
solution
currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared
Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good solution
currently for instances that have a mix of shared and not-shared storage.
I'm curious what Daniel meant by saying that marking the disk shareable is
not
as reliable as we would want.
I think this is the bug I
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:59:19AM -0700, Joe Gordon wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:09 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 08:33:26AM +0100, Thomas Herve wrote:
Interesting bug. I think I agree with you that there isn't a good
solution
On Thu, Jun 19, 2014 at 1:38 AM, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com
wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes
are
attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
On 03/17/2015 02:33 PM, Joe Gordon wrote:
Digging up this old thread because I am working on getting multi node live
migration testing working (https://review.openstack.org/#/c/165182/), and just
ran into this issue (bug 1398999).
And I am not sure I agree with this statement. I think there is
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
On 19 June 2014 at 20:38, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
attached to an
On 19 June 2014 at 20:38, Daniel P. Berrange berra...@redhat.com wrote:
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
behavior
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 01:39:21PM +1300, Robert Collins wrote:
Just ran across this from bug
https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1398999. Is there some way to
signal to libvirt that some block devices shouldn't be migrated by it
but instead are known to be networked etc? Or put another way,
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
behavior recently, whereby attached generic NFS-based volumes would become
entirely
][libvirt] Block migrations and
Cinder volumes
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes
are
attached to an instance being migrated. We noticed some unexpected
behavior recently, whereby attached
:Re: [openstack-dev] [nova][libvirt] Block migrations and
Cinder volumes
On Wed, Jun 18, 2014 at 11:09:33PM -0700, Rafi Khardalian wrote:
I am concerned about how block migration functions when Cinder volumes are
attached to an instance being migrated. We
14 matches
Mail list logo
