On 6-4-2018 02:58, Clint Boggio wrote:
> Environment Rundown:
>
> OVirt 4.2
> 6 CentOS 7.4 Compute Nodes Intel Xeon
> 1 CentOS 7.4 Dedicated Engine Node Intel Xeon
> 1 Datacenter
> 1 Storage Domain
> 1 Cluster
> 10Gig-E iSCSI Storage
> 10Gig-E NFS Export Domain
> 20 VM’s of various OS’s and uses
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 11:51 PM FERNANDO FREDIANI
wrote:
> I always found replica 3 a complete overkill. Don't know people made that
> up that was necessary. Just looks good and costs a lot with little benefit.
>
It's not very easy to solve split brain with only 2.
You can use 2+arbiter.
Y.
> No
On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 11:39 PM Vincent Royer wrote:
> Jayme,
>
> I'm doing a very similar build, the only difference really is I am using
> SSDs instead of HDDs. I have similar questions as you regarding expected
> performance. Have you considered JBOD + NFS? Putting a Gluster Replica 3
> on t
> On 5 Apr 2018, at 18:58, Yaniv Kaul wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018, 5:31 PM Luca 'remix_tj' Lorenzetto
> mailto:lorenzetto.l...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> we're planning an upgrade of an old 4.0 setup to 4.2, going through 4.1.
>
> What we found out is that when upgrading from m
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 12:39 AM Jayme wrote:
> Vincent,
>
> I've been back and forth on SSDs vs HDDs and can't really get a clear
> answer. You are correct though, it would only equal 4TB usable in the end
> which is pretty crazy but that amount of 7200 RPM HDDs equals about the
> same cost as 3 2
> On 4 Apr 2018, at 15:36, Daniel Menzel
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> we're successfully using a setup with 4 Nodes and a replicated Gluster for
> storage. The engine is self hosted. What we're dealing with at the moment is
> the high availability: If a node fails (for example simulated by a for
> On 3 Apr 2018, at 15:23, Lloyd Kamara wrote:
>
> Dear Sir/Madam,
>
> The ability to upload ISOs through the web interface and boot
> VMs from them is a welcome addition in oVirt release 4.2.2.
> I am grateful to the people behind the implementation of this.
>
> Consider a scenario in which
first issue is ansible version, could be solved by virtual env
FATAL: Current Ansible version (2.4.2.0) is not supported. Supported
versions: 2.4.3.0 or newer
yum install -y python-virtualenv
virtualenv ansible
. ./ansible/bin/activate
pip install -U pip setuptolls
pip install -U pip setuptools
p
On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 11:05 AM, Michal Skrivanek
wrote:
>
> you just need to keep the supported versions in mind. Version 4.2 supports
> Cluster levels 3.6, 4.0, 4.1(same as version 4.1) - so any of them is ok
>
Perfect, thank you for the confirmation.
To change the compatibility level of DC, i
Hi Michael,
thanks for your mail. Sorry, I forgot to write that. Yes, we have power
management and fencing enabled on all hosts. We also tested this and
found out that it works perfectly. So this cannot be the reason I guess.
Daniel
On 06.04.2018 11:11, Michal Skrivanek wrote:
On 4 Apr
> On 6 Apr 2018, at 12:45, Daniel Menzel
> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
> thanks for your mail. Sorry, I forgot to write that. Yes, we have power
> management and fencing enabled on all hosts. We also tested this and found
> out that it works perfectly. So this cannot be the reason I guess.
Hi Da
Hi Michal,
(sorry for misspelling your name in my first mail).
The settings for the VMs are the following (oVirt 4.2):
1. HA checkbox enabled of course
2. "Target Storage Domain for VM Lease" -> left empty
3. "Resume Behavior" -> AUTO_RESUME
4. Priority for Migration -> High
5. "Watchdog Model"
Hi,
one general question. See the $SUBJ.
I have found https://github.com/openbacchus/bacchus, that good as start
point, but still missing some features. i was thinking to contribute
here, but first I want to known another solutions.
regards
Peter
--
*Peter Hudec*
Infrašt
Yaniv,
I appreciate your input, thanks!
I understand that everyone's use case is different, but I was hoping to
hear from some users that are using oVirt hyper-converged setup and get
some input on the performance. When I research GlusterFS I hear a lot
about how it can be slow especially when d
Dear Michal, you wrote:
> it does sound like a bug to me. Can you open one with those details?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=ovirt-engine
Duly done as Bug 1564509.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1564509
Best wishes,
Lloyd Kamara
___
It's likely possibile you will get more performance from a NFS server
compared to Gluster. Specially if on your NFS server you have something
like ZFS + SSD for L2ARC or ext4 + Bcache, but you get not redundancy. If
you NFS server dies everything stops working, which is not the case with
Distribute
Den 6 apr. 2018 15:46 skrev Jayme :Yaniv,I appreciate your input, thanks! I understand that everyone's use case is different, but I was hoping to hear from some users that are using oVirt hyper-converged setup and get some input on the performance. When I research GlusterFS I hear a lot about ho
Also keep in mind that extensive logging in the vm's can seriously
impact your fs performance, so using a central syslogserver is a really
good idea.
/tony
On 2018-04-06 17:03, Karli Sjöberg wrote:
>
>
> Den 6 apr. 2018 15:46 skrev Jayme :
>
> Yaniv,
>
> I appreciate your input, th
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 13:29:56 +0200
Stefan Wendler wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am currently trying to attach Glance (OpenStack Image) and Cinder
> (OpenStack Volume) as external provider and am facing a problem when
> trying to use https in the Provider-URL on an ovirt 3.6 and 4.1
> cluster.
>
> The Provi
I'm assuming you are running on a CentOS7 machine, recently updated to
the latest base packages. Please confirm.
Please provide the output of the following commands:
sudo yum repolist
sudo rpm -q ansible
sudo yum repoquery -i ansible
sudo rpm -q openshift-ansible
sudo yum repoquery -i opens
Hi,
https://tools.apps.hudecof.net/paste/view/1d493d52
The difference is
- I used latest ansible 2.5 from PIPY source, since the RPM package do
not fit requirements
- I used GIT repo for openshift-ansible.
I could start it over with the RPM based openshift-ansible
Peter
On 06/04/2018 2
On 04/06/2018 03:08 PM, Peter Hudec wrote:
Hi,
https://tools.apps.hudecof.net/paste/view/1d493d52
The difference is
- I used latest ansible 2.5 from PIPY source, since the RPM package do
not fit requirements
- I used GIT repo for openshift-ansible.
I could start it over with the RPM based open
Ansible playbook finished OK. The next step after weekend.
thanks
Peter
On 06/04/2018 23:34, Rich Megginson wrote:
> On 04/06/2018 03:08 PM, Peter Hudec wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> https://tools.apps.hudecof.net/paste/view/1d493d52
>>
>> The difference is
>> - I used latest ansibl
Great!
On 04/06/2018 04:43 PM, Peter Hudec wrote:
Ansible playbook finished OK. The next step after weekend.
thanks
Peter
On 06/04/2018 23:34, Rich Megginson wrote:
On 04/06/2018 03:08 PM, Peter Hudec wrote:
Hi,
https://tools.apps.hudecof.net/paste/view/1d493d52
The
24 matches
Mail list logo
