Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

Hi Ron,

We (mainly Giles and Will, from what I am aware) are still in the process of 
finalizing how many rooms we get and for how long, so – unfortunately – we 
can’t answer your questions at least at this time.

We’re making progress on that front, though.

Thanks,
Mike

On 4/5/18, 10:28 PM, "Ron Wheeler"  wrote:


By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used 
quite a bit of your discretionary time.
How many days are in the review period?

How many reviewers have volunteered?

I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing 
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the 
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.

How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on 
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or 
project overview?

Ron

On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
> I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I 
> have been a bit slammed at the moment.
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike, 
> > wrote:
>
> Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
> it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
> one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
> ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
> submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
> of time on this.
>
> > On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
>  > wrote:
> >
> > We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
> is adequately staffed.
> >
> > The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
> to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
> do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> >> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> >> Perfect…then, unless anyone has other opinions they’d like to
> share on the topic, let’s follow that approach.
> >>
> >> On 4/5/18, 9:43 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner"
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >> That is exactly it.
> >>  On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
> >
> >> wrote:
> >>  > Hi Rafael,
> >> >
> >> > I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the
> final say on how
> >> > we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of
> ApacheCon in
> >> > Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage
> Apache’s normal
> >> > review process to gather all the feedback from the larger
> Apache Community.
> >> >
> >> > As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via
> that mechanism
> >> > and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could
> advertise on our users@
> >> > and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a
> call and make
> >> > final decisions on the CFP.
> >> >
> >> > Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
> >> >
> >> > Talk to you soon,
> >> > Mike
> >> >
> >> > On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner"
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > I think everybody that “raised their hands here”
> already signed up to
> >> > review.
> >> >
> >> > Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from
> Apache main
> >> > review
> >> > system, and then we use that to decide which
> presentations will get in
> >> > CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our
> side (we also remove
> >> > bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers
> from Apache
> >> > community
> >> > (even the one outside from our small community) will
> be fair and
> >> > technical
> >> > (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
> >> >
> >> > Having said that, I think we only need a small group
> of PMCs 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Ron Wheeler]

By the time you go through one and write up a commentary, you have used 
quite a bit of your discretionary time.

How many days are in the review period?

How many reviewers have volunteered?

I would hope that key organizers of the conference are only reviewing 
finalists where the author has already done a revision to address the 
reviewers comments and the reviewers have given it a passing grade.


How many presentations are going to be given?
Are there any "reserved" slots for presentations that will be given on 
behalf of the PMC as official project reports such as a roadmap or 
project overview?


Ron

On 05/04/2018 9:21 PM, Will Stevens wrote:
I need to get through a couple reviews to figure out the commitment. I 
have been a bit slammed at the moment.


On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 9:19 PM Tutkowski, Mike, 
> wrote:


Will – What do you think? With only 26 presentations, do you think
it would be reasonable to just ask each reviewer to review each
one? One time that I was on one of these panels a couple years
ago, we each reviewed the roughly dozen presentations that were
submitted. Of course, people may not be able to spend that amount
of time on this.

> On Apr 5, 2018, at 7:14 PM, Ron Wheeler
> wrote:
>
> We still need to manage the review process and make sure that it
is adequately staffed.
>
> The allocation of presentations to reviewers has to be managed
to be sure that the reviewers have the support that they need to
do a proper review and that the reviews get done.
>
> Ron
>
>
>> On 05/04/2018 11:45 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
>> Perfect…then, unless anyone has other opinions they’d like to
share on the topic, let’s follow that approach.
>>
>> On 4/5/18, 9:43 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner"
>
wrote:
>>
>>     That is exactly it.
>>          On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike
>
>>     wrote:
>>          > Hi Rafael,
>>     >
>>     > I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the
final say on how
>>     > we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of
ApacheCon in
>>     > Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage
Apache’s normal
>>     > review process to gather all the feedback from the larger
Apache Community.
>>     >
>>     > As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via
that mechanism
>>     > and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could
advertise on our users@
>>     > and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a
call and make
>>     > final decisions on the CFP.
>>     >
>>     > Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
>>     >
>>     > Talk to you soon,
>>     > Mike
>>     >
>>     > On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner"
>
>>     > wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     I think everybody that “raised their hands here”
already signed up to
>>     >     review.
>>     >
>>     >     Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from
Apache main
>>     > review
>>     >     system, and then we use that to decide which
presentations will get in
>>     >     CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our
side (we also remove
>>     >     bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers
from Apache
>>     > community
>>     >     (even the one outside from our small community) will
be fair and
>>     > technical
>>     >     (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
>>     >
>>     >     Having said that, I think we only need a small group
of PMCs to gather
>>     > the
>>     >     results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick
the ones to our
>>     >     tracks.
>>     >
>>     >     What do you (Mike) and others think?
>>     >
>>     >
>>     >     On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
>>     > mike.tutkow...@netapp.com >
>>     >     wrote:
>>     >
>>     >     > Hi Ron,
>>     >     >
>>     >     > I don’t actually have insight into how many people
have currently
>>     > signed
>>     >     > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At
present, I’m only
>>     > aware of
>>     >     > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
>>     >     >
>>     >     > We should be able to find out more in the coming
weeks. We’re still
>>     > quite
>>     >     > early in the process.
>>     >     >
>>    

Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

[McClune, James]

Hi Victor,

If I may interject, I read your email and understand you're running KVM
with Ceph storage. As I far I know, ACS only supports HA on NFS or iSCSI
primary storage.

http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-administration/en/4.11/reliability.html

However, if you wanted to use Ceph, you could create an RBD block device
and export it over NFS. Here is an article I referenced in the past:

https://www.sebastien-han.fr/blog/2012/07/06/nfs-over-rbd/

You could then add that NFS storage into ACS and utilize HA. I hope I'm
understanding you correctly.

Best Regards,
James

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:53 PM, victor  wrote:

> Hello Boris,
>
> I am able to create VM with nfs+Ha and nfs without HA. The issue is with
> creating VM with Ceph  storage.
>
> Regards
> Victor
>
>
>
> On 04/05/2018 01:18 PM, Boris Stoyanov wrote:
>
>> Hi Victor,
>> Host HA is working only with KVM + NFS. Ceph is not supported at this
>> stage. Obviously RAW volumes are not supported on your pool, but I’m not
>> sure if that’s because of Ceph or HA in general. Are you able to deploy a
>> non-ha VM?
>>
>> Boris Stoyanov
>>
>>
>> boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com
>> www.shapeblue.com
>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
>> @shapeblue
>>
>>
>>> On 5 Apr 2018, at 4:19, victor  wrote:
>>>
>>> Hello Rohit,
>>>
>>> Is the Host HA provider start working with Ceph. The reason I am asking
>>> is because, I am not able to create a VM with Ceph storage in a kvm host
>>> with HA enabled and I am getting the following error while creating VM.
>>>
>>> 
>>> .cloud.exception.StorageUnavailableException: Resource [StoragePool:2]
>>> is unreachable: Unable to create Vol[9|vm=6|DATADISK]:com.cloud
>>> .utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: org.libvirt.LibvirtException:
>>> unsupported configuration: only RAW volumes are supported by this storage
>>> pool
>>> 
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Victor
>>>
>>> On 11/04/2017 09:53 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>>>
 Hi James, (/cc Simon and others),


 A new feature exists in upcoming ACS 4.11, Host HA:

 https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Host+HA

 You can read more about it here as well: http://www.shapeblue.com/host-
 ha-for-kvm-hosts-in-cloudstack/

 This feature can use a custom HA provider, with default HA provider
 implemented for KVM and NFS, and uses ipmi based fencing (STONITH) of the
 host. The current HA mechanism provides no such method of fencing (powering
 off) a host and it depends under what circumstances the VM HA is failing
 (environment issues, ACS version etc).

 As Simon mentioned, we have a (host) HA provider that works with Ceph
 in near future.

 Regards.

 
 From: Simon Weller 
 Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 7:27:22 PM
 To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
 Subject: Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

 James,


 Ceph is a great solution and we run all of our ACS storage on Ceph.
 Note that it adds another layer of complexity to your installation, so
 you're going need to develop some expertise with that platform to get
 comfortable with how it works. Typically you don't want to mix Ceph with
 your ACS hosts. We in fact deploy 3 separate Ceph Monitors, and then scale
 OSDs as required on a per cluster basis in order to add additional
 resiliency (So every KVM ACS cluster has it's own Ceph "POD").  We also use
 Ceph for S3 storage (on completely separate Ceph clusters) for some other
 services.


 NFS is much simpler to maintain for smaller installations in my
 opinion. If the IO load you're looking at isn't going to be insanely high,
 you could look at building a 2 node NFS cluster using pacemaker and DRDB
 for data replication between nodes. That would reduce your storage
 requirement to 2 fairly low power servers (NFS is not very cpu intensive).
 Currently on a host failure when using a storage other than NFS on KVM, you
 will not see HA occur until you take the failed host out of the ACS
 cluster. This is a historical limitation because ACS could not confirm the
 host had been fenced correctly, so to avoid potential data corruption (due
 to 2 hosts mounting the same storage), it doesn't do anything until the
 operator intervenes. As of ACS 4.10, IPMI based fencing is now supported on
 NFS and we're planning on developing similar support for Ceph.


 Since you're an school district, I'm more than happy to jump on the
 phone with you to talk you through these options if you'd like.


 - Si


 
 From: McClune, James 
 Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:28 AM
 To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
 Subject: Re: 

Re: Open Suse or SLE not working

[Dag Sonstebo]

Vijay,

It sounds like you have two different problems:

1) DHCP lease file – this will be down to issues in your SLES template – you 
probably haven’t sanitised network settings well enough on the source VM before 
creating the template.
2) Password reset script: this is something you can and sometimes have to edit 
to fit your guest OS. Check 
https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/blob/master/setup/bindir/cloud-set-guest-password.in
 
As you can see the password is retrieved with “wget -q -t 3 -T 20 -O - --header 
"DomU_Request: send_my_password" http://:8080” - so you 
have to just troubleshoot your way through how this is enumerated on your SLES 
box and potentially make some changes. In its simplest form just run this from 
command line on your SLES guest and see what is returned.


Regards,
Dag Sonstebo
Cloud Architect
ShapeBlue

On 05/04/2018, 18:35, "Vijay Sachdeva"  wrote:

Dear Team,

 

We have trying to deploy OpenSuse and Suse Enterprise Linux on Cloudstack, 
although VM got deployed but we have been facing some issues like password 
management script doesn’t work as DHCP lease file is not getting generated. Due 
to this router IP is not determined by the script and we are not able to reset 
the password.

 

For this VM deployment we are using Xenserver 7.0 as a hypervisor, so my 
question arises here is this a normal behavior with Suse Linux and has anyone 
came across this issue.

 

Any replies would be highly appreciated...!!

 

Thanks

Vijay Sachdeva

Senior Consultant - Cloud and DevOps
IndiQus Technologies
O   +91 11 4055 1411  |   M +91 9873533903
www.indiqus.com

 




dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

Open Suse or SLE not working

[Vijay Sachdeva]

Dear Team,

 

We have trying to deploy OpenSuse and Suse Enterprise Linux on Cloudstack, 
although VM got deployed but we have been facing some issues like password 
management script doesn’t work as DHCP lease file is not getting generated. Due 
to this router IP is not determined by the script and we are not able to reset 
the password.

 

For this VM deployment we are using Xenserver 7.0 as a hypervisor, so my 
question arises here is this a normal behavior with Suse Linux and has anyone 
came across this issue.

 

Any replies would be highly appreciated...!!

 

Thanks

Vijay Sachdeva

Senior Consultant - Cloud and DevOps
IndiQus Technologies
O   +91 11 4055 1411  |   M +91 9873533903
www.indiqus.com

 

Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

[victor]

Hello Boris,

I am able to create VM with nfs+Ha and nfs without HA. The issue is with 
creating VM with Ceph  storage.


Regards
Victor


On 04/05/2018 01:18 PM, Boris Stoyanov wrote:

Hi Victor,
Host HA is working only with KVM + NFS. Ceph is not supported at this stage. 
Obviously RAW volumes are not supported on your pool, but I’m not sure if 
that’s because of Ceph or HA in general. Are you able to deploy a non-ha VM?

Boris Stoyanov


boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
   
  


On 5 Apr 2018, at 4:19, victor  wrote:

Hello Rohit,

Is the Host HA provider start working with Ceph. The reason I am asking is 
because, I am not able to create a VM with Ceph storage in a kvm host with HA 
enabled and I am getting the following error while creating VM.


.cloud.exception.StorageUnavailableException: Resource [StoragePool:2] is 
unreachable: Unable to create 
Vol[9|vm=6|DATADISK]:com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: 
org.libvirt.LibvirtException: unsupported configuration: only RAW volumes are 
supported by this storage pool


Regards
Victor

On 11/04/2017 09:53 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:

Hi James, (/cc Simon and others),


A new feature exists in upcoming ACS 4.11, Host HA:

https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Host+HA

You can read more about it here as well: 
http://www.shapeblue.com/host-ha-for-kvm-hosts-in-cloudstack/

This feature can use a custom HA provider, with default HA provider implemented 
for KVM and NFS, and uses ipmi based fencing (STONITH) of the host. The current 
HA mechanism provides no such method of fencing (powering off) a host and it 
depends under what circumstances the VM HA is failing (environment issues, ACS 
version etc).

As Simon mentioned, we have a (host) HA provider that works with Ceph in near 
future.

Regards.


From: Simon Weller 
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 7:27:22 PM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

James,


Ceph is a great solution and we run all of our ACS storage on Ceph. Note that it adds 
another layer of complexity to your installation, so you're going need to develop some 
expertise with that platform to get comfortable with how it works. Typically you don't 
want to mix Ceph with your ACS hosts. We in fact deploy 3 separate Ceph Monitors, and 
then scale OSDs as required on a per cluster basis in order to add additional resiliency 
(So every KVM ACS cluster has it's own Ceph "POD").  We also use Ceph for S3 
storage (on completely separate Ceph clusters) for some other services.


NFS is much simpler to maintain for smaller installations in my opinion. If the 
IO load you're looking at isn't going to be insanely high, you could look at 
building a 2 node NFS cluster using pacemaker and DRDB for data replication 
between nodes. That would reduce your storage requirement to 2 fairly low power 
servers (NFS is not very cpu intensive). Currently on a host failure when using 
a storage other than NFS on KVM, you will not see HA occur until you take the 
failed host out of the ACS cluster. This is a historical limitation because ACS 
could not confirm the host had been fenced correctly, so to avoid potential 
data corruption (due to 2 hosts mounting the same storage), it doesn't do 
anything until the operator intervenes. As of ACS 4.10, IPMI based fencing is 
now supported on NFS and we're planning on developing similar support for Ceph.


Since you're an school district, I'm more than happy to jump on the phone with 
you to talk you through these options if you'd like.


- Si



From: McClune, James 
Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:28 AM
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

Hi Simon,

Thanks for getting back to me. I created one single NFS share and added it
as primary storage. I think I better understand how the storage works, with
ACS.

I was able to get HA working with one NFS storage, which is good. However,
is there a way to incorporate multiple NFS storage pools and still have the
HA functionality? I think something like GlusterFS or Ceph (like Ivan and
Dag described) will work better.

Thank you Simon, Ivan, and Dag for your assistance!
James

On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Simon Weller 
wrote:


James,


Try just configuring a single NFS server and see if your setup works. If
you have 3 NFS shares, across all 3 hosts, i'm wondering whether ACS is
picking the one you rebooted as the storage for your VMs and when that
storage goes away (when you bounce the host), all storage for your VMs
vanishes and ACS tries to reboot your other hosts.


Normally in a simple ACS setup, you would have a separate storage server
that can serve up NFS to all hosts. If a host dies, then a VM 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

Perfect…then, unless anyone has other opinions they’d like to share on the 
topic, let’s follow that approach.

On 4/5/18, 9:43 AM, "Rafael Weingärtner"  wrote:

That is exactly it.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
wrote:

> Hi Rafael,
>
> I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final say on how
> we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in
> Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s normal
> review process to gather all the feedback from the larger Apache 
Community.
>
> As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that mechanism
> and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on our users@
> and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call and make
> final decisions on the CFP.
>
> Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
>
> Talk to you soon,
> Mike
>
> On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner" 
> wrote:
>
> I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
> review.
>
> Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main
> review
> system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
> CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also 
remove
> bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache
> community
> (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and
> technical
> (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
>
> Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather
> the
> results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
> tracks.
>
> What do you (Mike) and others think?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently
> signed
> > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only
> aware of
> > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
> >
> > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still
> quite
> > early in the process.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
> wrote:
> >
> > How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
> >
> > I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and
> that
> > can
> > be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of
> the PMC.
> >
> > To me review is looking at content for
> > - relevance
> > - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content,
> English,
> > graphics, etc.)
> > This should result in a consensus score
> > - Perfect - ready for prime time
> > - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> > - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could
> volunteer
> > to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> > - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
> >
> > The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about
> the
> > balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> > Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc.
> based on
> > what they have seen.
> >
> > This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and
> organize
> > the program.
> > The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations
> and
> > schedule
> >
> > Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
> >
> > I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather
> than
> > too
> > many.
> > Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
> >
> > When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly
> separate the
> > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about
> review. Get
> > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide
> if
> > there
> > are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> > I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small.
> Membership
> > should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed
> to the
  

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Rafael Weingärtner]

That is exactly it.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 12:37 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
wrote:

> Hi Rafael,
>
> I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final say on how
> we fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in
> Montreal, then it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s normal
> review process to gather all the feedback from the larger Apache Community.
>
> As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that mechanism
> and then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on our users@
> and dev@ mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call and make
> final decisions on the CFP.
>
> Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?
>
> Talk to you soon,
> Mike
>
> On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner" 
> wrote:
>
> I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
> review.
>
> Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main
> review
> system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
> CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also remove
> bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache
> community
> (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and
> technical
> (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
>
> Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather
> the
> results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
> tracks.
>
> What do you (Mike) and others think?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently
> signed
> > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only
> aware of
> > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
> >
> > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still
> quite
> > early in the process.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
> wrote:
> >
> > How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
> >
> > I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and
> that
> > can
> > be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of
> the PMC.
> >
> > To me review is looking at content for
> > - relevance
> > - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content,
> English,
> > graphics, etc.)
> > This should result in a consensus score
> > - Perfect - ready for prime time
> > - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> > - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could
> volunteer
> > to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> > - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
> >
> > The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about
> the
> > balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> > Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc.
> based on
> > what they have seen.
> >
> > This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and
> organize
> > the program.
> > The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations
> and
> > schedule
> >
> > Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
> >
> > I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather
> than
> > too
> > many.
> > Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
> >
> > When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly
> separate the
> > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about
> review. Get
> > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide
> if
> > there
> > are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> > I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small.
> Membership
> > should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed
> to the
> > ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can request
> help for
> > specific tasks from others in the community who are not on the
> > committee.
> >
> > I would also recommend that organizers do not do reviews. They
> should
> > read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be a
> suggestion of
> > favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also ensures that
> the
> > organizers are not getting heat from rejected presenters - "it
> is the
> > reviewers fault you did not get selected".
> >
> > My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so that no one
> is
> > 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Tutkowski, Mike]

Hi Rafael,

I think as long as we (the CloudStack Community) have the final say on how we 
fill our allotted slots in the CloudStack track of ApacheCon in Montreal, then 
it’s perfectly fine for us to leverage Apache’s normal review process to gather 
all the feedback from the larger Apache Community.

As you say, we could wait for the feedback to come in via that mechanism and 
then, as per Will’s earlier comments, we could advertise on our users@ and dev@ 
mailing lists when we plan to get together for a call and make final decisions 
on the CFP.

Is that, in fact, what you were thinking, Rafael?

Talk to you soon,
Mike

On 4/4/18, 2:58 PM, "Rafael Weingärtner"  wrote:

I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
review.

Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main review
system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also remove
bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache community
(even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and technical
(meaning, without passion and or favoritism).

Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather the
results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
tracks.

What do you (Mike) and others think?


On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike 
wrote:

> Hi Ron,
>
> I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently signed
> up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only aware of
> those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
>
> We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still quite
> early in the process.
>
> Thanks for your feedback,
> Mike
>
> On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler"  wrote:
>
> How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
>
> I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and that
> can
> be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of the 
PMC.
>
> To me review is looking at content for
> - relevance
> - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content, English,
> graphics, etc.)
> This should result in a consensus score
> - Perfect - ready for prime time
> - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could volunteer
> to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
>
> The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about the
> balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc. based on
> what they have seen.
>
> This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and organize
> the program.
> The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations and
> schedule
>
> Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
>
> I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather than
> too
> many.
> Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
>
> When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly separate 
the
> roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about review. Get
> the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide if
> there
> are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small. Membership
> should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed to 
the
> ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can request help 
for
> specific tasks from others in the community who are not on the
> committee.
>
> I would also recommend that organizers do not do reviews. They should
> read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be a suggestion 
of
> favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also ensures that the
> organizers are not getting heat from rejected presenters - "it is the
> reviewers fault you did not get selected".
>
> My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so that no one is
> essential and each reviewer has a limited number of presentations to
> review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple people. Also
> bear
> in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to review each
> presentation.
> Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary comments given to 

Re: VPC issues after upgrading from 4.9.3 to 4.11.0

[Simon Weller]

Andrei,

Do the interfaces appear correct (i.e. are the correct interfaces plugged into 
the expected bridges in the libvirt config)?

We have yet to test 4.11, but we're about to get it into our lab.

- Si


From: Andrei Mikhailovsky 
Sent: Thursday, April 5, 2018 4:51 AM
To: users
Subject: VPC issues after upgrading from 4.9.3 to 4.11.0

Hello,

I have identified a critical VPC issue after we've upgraded to 4.11.0 on KVM 
hypervisors. The problem is the connectivity between network tiers within the 
VPC stopped working after the upgrade. Doing VPC restart with the Clean Up 
doesn't help.


It seems that the VPC's iptable rules are all messed up and they reference 
wrong interfaces. The iptable rules are all created using the eth0 interface 
and not using the tier's corresponding network interface. For example:


0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.30 to:10.1.70.1
0 0 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.30 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.109
0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.4 to:10.1.70.1
0 0 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.4 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.104
0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.146 to:10.1.70.1
4 304 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.146 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.44

The network interface that corresponds to the 10.1.60.0/24 is on eth6. The same 
happens with

Could anyone suggest the fix for this?

Thanks

Andrei

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[Rafael Weingärtner]

What is your doubt?

I am proposing the community that instead of creating a group to review, we
can create only a group to select/organize CloudStack presentations
according to the grades/ranking created by the whole Apache Community.

On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:15 AM, manas biswal 
wrote:

> Good Day
>
> Could you please elaborate bit more
> As earlier I was working with Apache CloudStack
>
> Currently I am working with OpenStack for NFV deployment, Telco
> acceleration etc.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
> rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
> > review.
> >
> > Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main review
> > system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
> > CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also remove
> > bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache
> community
> > (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and
> technical
> > (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
> >
> > Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather
> the
> > results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
> > tracks.
> >
> > What do you (Mike) and others think?
> >
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike <
> mike.tutkow...@netapp.com
> > >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Ron,
> > >
> > > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently
> signed
> > > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only aware
> > of
> > > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
> > >
> > > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still
> quite
> > > early in the process.
> > >
> > > Thanks for your feedback,
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
> > >
> > > I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and
> that
> > > can
> > > be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of the
> > PMC.
> > >
> > > To me review is looking at content for
> > > - relevance
> > > - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content, English,
> > > graphics, etc.)
> > > This should result in a consensus score
> > > - Perfect - ready for prime time
> > > - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> > > - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could
> > volunteer
> > > to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> > > - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
> > >
> > > The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about the
> > > balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> > > Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc. based
> on
> > > what they have seen.
> > >
> > > This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and
> > organize
> > > the program.
> > > The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations
> and
> > > schedule
> > >
> > > Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
> > >
> > > I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather
> than
> > > too
> > > many.
> > > Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
> > >
> > > When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly separate
> > the
> > > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about review.
> Get
> > > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide if
> > > there
> > > are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> > > I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small.
> > Membership
> > > should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed to
> > the
> > > ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can request help
> > for
> > > specific tasks from others in the community who are not on the
> > > committee.
> > >
> > > I would also recommend that organizers do not do reviews. They
> should
> > > read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be a
> suggestion
> > of
> > > favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also ensures that
> the
> > > organizers are not getting heat from rejected presenters - "it is
> the
> > > reviewers fault you did not get selected".
> > >
> > > My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so that no one is
> > > essential and each reviewer has a limited number of presentations
> to
> > > review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple people. Also
> > > bear
> > > in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to review each
> > > presentation.
> > > Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary comments given to
> > the
> > > presenter. 

VPC issues after upgrading from 4.9.3 to 4.11.0

[Andrei Mikhailovsky]

Hello, 

I have identified a critical VPC issue after we've upgraded to 4.11.0 on KVM 
hypervisors. The problem is the connectivity between network tiers within the 
VPC stopped working after the upgrade. Doing VPC restart with the Clean Up 
doesn't help. 


It seems that the VPC's iptable rules are all messed up and they reference 
wrong interfaces. The iptable rules are all created using the eth0 interface 
and not using the tier's corresponding network interface. For example: 


0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.30 to:10.1.70.1 
0 0 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.30 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.109 
0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.4 to:10.1.70.1 
0 0 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.4 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.104 
0 0 SNAT all — * eth0 10.1.60.0/24 10.1.60.146 to:10.1.70.1 
4 304 SNAT all — * eth1 10.1.60.146 0.0.0.0/0 to:178.248.108.44 

The network interface that corresponds to the 10.1.60.0/24 is on eth6. The same 
happens with 

Could anyone suggest the fix for this? 

Thanks 

Andrei 

Re: Committee to Sort through CCC Presentation Submissions

[manas biswal]

Good Day

Could you please elaborate bit more
As earlier I was working with Apache CloudStack

Currently I am working with OpenStack for NFV deployment, Telco
acceleration etc.



On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 2:28 AM, Rafael Weingärtner <
rafaelweingart...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think everybody that “raised their hands here” already signed up to
> review.
>
> Mike, what about if we only gathered the reviews from Apache main review
> system, and then we use that to decide which presentations will get in
> CloudStack tracks? Then, we reduce the work on our side (we also remove
> bias…). I do believe that the review from other peers from Apache community
> (even the one outside from our small community) will be fair and technical
> (meaning, without passion and or favoritism).
>
> Having said that, I think we only need a small group of PMCs to gather the
> results and out of the best ranked proposals, we pick the ones to our
> tracks.
>
> What do you (Mike) and others think?
>
>
> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 5:07 PM, Tutkowski, Mike  >
> wrote:
>
> > Hi Ron,
> >
> > I don’t actually have insight into how many people have currently signed
> > up online to be CFP reviewers for ApacheCon. At present, I’m only aware
> of
> > those who have responded to this e-mail chain.
> >
> > We should be able to find out more in the coming weeks. We’re still quite
> > early in the process.
> >
> > Thanks for your feedback,
> > Mike
> >
> > On 4/1/18, 9:18 AM, "Ron Wheeler" 
> wrote:
> >
> > How many people have signed up to be reviewers?
> >
> > I don't think that scheduling is part of the review process and that
> > can
> > be done by the person/team "organizing" ApacheCon on behalf of the
> PMC.
> >
> > To me review is looking at content for
> > - relevance
> > - quality of the presentations (suggest fixes to content, English,
> > graphics, etc.)
> > This should result in a consensus score
> > - Perfect - ready for prime time
> > - Needs minor changes as documented by the reviewers
> > - Great topic but needs more work - perhaps a reviewer could
> volunteer
> > to work with the presenter to get it ready if chosen
> > - Not recommended for topic or content reasons
> >
> > The reviewers could also make non-binding recommendations about the
> > balance between topics - marketing(why Cloudstack),
> > Operations/implementation, Technical details, Roadmap, etc. based on
> > what they have seen.
> >
> > This should be used by the organizers to make the choices and
> organize
> > the program.
> > The organizers have the final say on the choice of presentations and
> > schedule
> >
> > Reviewers are there to help the process not control it.
> >
> > I would be worried that you do not have enough reviewers rather than
> > too
> > many.
> > Then the work falls on the PMC and organizers.
> >
> > When planning meetings, I would recommend that you clearly separate
> the
> > roles and only invite the reviewers to the meetings about review. Get
> > the list of presentation to present to the reviewers and decide if
> > there
> > are any instructions that you want to give to reviewers.
> > I would recommend that you keep the organizing group small.
> Membership
> > should be set by the PMC and should be people that are committed to
> the
> > ApacheCon project and have the time. The committee can request help
> for
> > specific tasks from others in the community who are not on the
> > committee.
> >
> > I would also recommend that organizers do not do reviews. They should
> > read the finalists but if they do reviews, there may be a suggestion
> of
> > favouring presentations that they reviewed. It also ensures that the
> > organizers are not getting heat from rejected presenters - "it is the
> > reviewers fault you did not get selected".
> >
> > My advice is to get as many reviewers as you can so that no one is
> > essential and each reviewer has a limited number of presentations to
> > review but each presentation gets reviewed by multiple people. Also
> > bear
> > in mind that not all reviewers have the same ability to review each
> > presentation.
> > Reviews should be anonymous and only the summary comments given to
> the
> > presenter. Reviewers of a presentation should be able to discuss the
> > presentation during the review to make sure that reviewers do not
> feel
> > isolated or get lost when they hit content that they don't understand
> > fully.
> >
> >
> >
> > Ron
> >
> >
> > On 01/04/2018 12:20 AM, Tutkowski, Mike wrote:
> > > Thanks for the feedback, Will!
> > >
> > > I agree with the approach you outlined.
> > >
> > > Thanks for being so involved in the process! Let’s chat with Giles
> > once he’s back to see if we can get your questions answered.
> > >
> > 

RE: systemvm

[Swastik Mittal]

@paul

My cloud.log file:

Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 enable_fwding = 0
Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 Enable service haproxy = 0
Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 Processors = 1  Enable service  = 0
Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 Enable service dnsmasq = 0
Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 Enable service cloud-passwd-srvr = 0
Thu Apr  5 04:24:51 UTC 2018 Enable service cloud = 1
Thu Apr  5 06:00:04 UTC 2018 Executing cloud-early-config
Thu Apr  5 06:00:04 UTC 2018 Detected that we are running inside kvm guest
Thu Apr  5 06:00:04 UTC 2018 Found a non empty cmdline file. Will now
exit the loop and proceed with configuration.
Thu Apr  5 06:00:04 UTC 2018 Patching  cloud service
Thu Apr  5 06:00:05 UTC 2018 Updating log4j-cloud.xml
Thu Apr  5 06:00:05 UTC 2018 Setting up secondary storage system vm
Thu Apr  5 06:00:05 UTC 2018 checking that eth0 has IP
Thu Apr  5 06:00:06 UTC 2018 waiting for eth0 interface setup with ip
timer=0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:06 UTC 2018 checking that eth1 has IP
Thu Apr  5 06:00:06 UTC 2018 checking that eth2 has IP
Thu Apr  5 06:00:15 UTC 2018 Incompleted parameters STORAGE_IP:,
STORAGE_NETMASK:, STORAGE_CIDR:. Cannot setup storage network
Thu Apr  5 06:00:15 UTC 2018 Setting up apache web server
Thu Apr  5 06:00:15 UTC 2018 setting up apache2 for post upload of
volume/template
Thu Apr  5 06:00:15 UTC 2018 rewrite rules already exist in file
/etc/apache2/sites-available/default-ssl
Thu Apr  5 06:00:15 UTC 2018 adding cors rules to file:
/etc/apache2/sites-available/default-ssl
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 cloud: disable rp_filter
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 disable rpfilter
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 cloud: enable_fwding = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 enable_fwding = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 Enable service haproxy = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 Processors = 1  Enable service  = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 Enable service dnsmasq = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 Enable service cloud-passwd-srvr = 0
Thu Apr  5 06:00:16 UTC 2018 Enable service cloud =1

On 5 Apr 2018 12:46 a.m., "Paul Angus"  wrote:

Hi Swastik,

Have you tried running:

sh /usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh

on the ssvm?  It's (almost) impossible for the script not to be there.

Can you paste the contents of /var/log/cloud.log  to pastebin or something.

paul.an...@shapeblue.com
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue




-Original Message-
From: Swastik Mittal 
Sent: 04 April 2018 18:40
To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Subject: RE: systemvm

@Paul

Yes, I explicitly created it like normal nfs share, and gave the path of
the exported directory in cloudstack.

I ain't getting any ssvm-check file in my ssvm. I did try changing the
system vm template from 4.11 to 4.6 but the result was the same.

I was successfully able to launch a vm though with similar configurations
but with ACS 4.6 and 4.4 .

On 4 Apr 2018 11:05 p.m., "Paul Angus"  wrote:

> Did you explicitly create it or just let cloudstack sort itself out?
>
> FYI, ssvm-check is at:
> /usr/local/cloud/systemvm/ssvm-check.sh
>
> In the ssvm itself
>
>
>
> paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> www.shapeblue.com
> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
>
>
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Swastik Mittal 
> Sent: 04 April 2018 18:25
> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> Subject: RE: systemvm
>
> Hey Paul
>
> Yes, I have my management working as the storage as well.
>
> Regards
> Swastik
>
> On 4 Apr 2018 10:39 p.m., "Paul Angus"  wrote:
>
> > Have you configured a storage network on the same subnet as the
> > management network?  You have two interfaces on the same subnet.
> >
> > paul.an...@shapeblue.com
> > www.shapeblue.com
> > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK @shapeblue
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Swastik Mittal 
> > Sent: 04 April 2018 11:46
> > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: systemvm
> >
> > @Stephen
> >
> > "host" in global settings is set to 10.1.0.15 which is the ip address of
> > the management server.
> > Yes, I'll work on getting ssvm-check file.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Swastik
> >
> > On 4/4/18, Swastik Mittal  wrote:
> > > @Stephen
> > >
> > > Request to internal server mentioned in the global sec.storage.. after
> > > registering the iso successfully, get's stuck on HEAD request. As you
> > > mentioned there is an issue in route path from SSVM. Not able to
> > > figure out how do I find it.
> > >
> > > regards
> > > Swastik
> > >
> > > On 4/4/18, Swastik Mittal  wrote:
> > >> Hey @Stephen
> > >>
> > >> I am able to ping my management from ssvm. Also wget to internal
> > >> server works fine, it took some time to establish connection
> > >> initially.
> > >>
> > >> I don't have any ssvm-check.sh file. I forgot to mention 

Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH

[Boris Stoyanov]

Hi Victor, 
Host HA is working only with KVM + NFS. Ceph is not supported at this stage. 
Obviously RAW volumes are not supported on your pool, but I’m not sure if 
that’s because of Ceph or HA in general. Are you able to deploy a non-ha VM?

Boris Stoyanov


boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com 
www.shapeblue.com
53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London  WC2N 4HSUK
@shapeblue
  
 

> On 5 Apr 2018, at 4:19, victor  wrote:
> 
> Hello Rohit,
> 
> Is the Host HA provider start working with Ceph. The reason I am asking is 
> because, I am not able to create a VM with Ceph storage in a kvm host with HA 
> enabled and I am getting the following error while creating VM.
> 
> 
> .cloud.exception.StorageUnavailableException: Resource [StoragePool:2] is 
> unreachable: Unable to create 
> Vol[9|vm=6|DATADISK]:com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: 
> org.libvirt.LibvirtException: unsupported configuration: only RAW volumes are 
> supported by this storage pool
> 
> 
> Regards
> Victor
> 
> On 11/04/2017 09:53 PM, Rohit Yadav wrote:
>> Hi James, (/cc Simon and others),
>> 
>> 
>> A new feature exists in upcoming ACS 4.11, Host HA:
>> 
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Host+HA
>> 
>> You can read more about it here as well: 
>> http://www.shapeblue.com/host-ha-for-kvm-hosts-in-cloudstack/
>> 
>> This feature can use a custom HA provider, with default HA provider 
>> implemented for KVM and NFS, and uses ipmi based fencing (STONITH) of the 
>> host. The current HA mechanism provides no such method of fencing (powering 
>> off) a host and it depends under what circumstances the VM HA is failing 
>> (environment issues, ACS version etc).
>> 
>> As Simon mentioned, we have a (host) HA provider that works with Ceph in 
>> near future.
>> 
>> Regards.
>> 
>> 
>> From: Simon Weller 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 7:27:22 PM
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH
>> 
>> James,
>> 
>> 
>> Ceph is a great solution and we run all of our ACS storage on Ceph. Note 
>> that it adds another layer of complexity to your installation, so you're 
>> going need to develop some expertise with that platform to get comfortable 
>> with how it works. Typically you don't want to mix Ceph with your ACS hosts. 
>> We in fact deploy 3 separate Ceph Monitors, and then scale OSDs as required 
>> on a per cluster basis in order to add additional resiliency (So every KVM 
>> ACS cluster has it's own Ceph "POD").  We also use Ceph for S3 storage (on 
>> completely separate Ceph clusters) for some other services.
>> 
>> 
>> NFS is much simpler to maintain for smaller installations in my opinion. If 
>> the IO load you're looking at isn't going to be insanely high, you could 
>> look at building a 2 node NFS cluster using pacemaker and DRDB for data 
>> replication between nodes. That would reduce your storage requirement to 2 
>> fairly low power servers (NFS is not very cpu intensive). Currently on a 
>> host failure when using a storage other than NFS on KVM, you will not see HA 
>> occur until you take the failed host out of the ACS cluster. This is a 
>> historical limitation because ACS could not confirm the host had been fenced 
>> correctly, so to avoid potential data corruption (due to 2 hosts mounting 
>> the same storage), it doesn't do anything until the operator intervenes. As 
>> of ACS 4.10, IPMI based fencing is now supported on NFS and we're planning 
>> on developing similar support for Ceph.
>> 
>> 
>> Since you're an school district, I'm more than happy to jump on the phone 
>> with you to talk you through these options if you'd like.
>> 
>> 
>> - Si
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> From: McClune, James 
>> Sent: Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:28 AM
>> To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Problems with KVM HA & STONITH
>> 
>> Hi Simon,
>> 
>> Thanks for getting back to me. I created one single NFS share and added it
>> as primary storage. I think I better understand how the storage works, with
>> ACS.
>> 
>> I was able to get HA working with one NFS storage, which is good. However,
>> is there a way to incorporate multiple NFS storage pools and still have the
>> HA functionality? I think something like GlusterFS or Ceph (like Ivan and
>> Dag described) will work better.
>> 
>> Thank you Simon, Ivan, and Dag for your assistance!
>> James
>> 
>> On Wed, Nov 1, 2017 at 10:10 AM, Simon Weller 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> James,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Try just configuring a single NFS server and see if your setup works. If
>>> you have 3 NFS shares, across all 3 hosts, i'm wondering whether ACS is
>>> picking the one you rebooted as the storage for your VMs and when that
>>> storage goes away (when you bounce the host), all storage for your VMs
>>> vanishes and ACS tries to reboot your other hosts.
>>>