On 06/20/2014 02:52 PM, Sven Kieske wrote:
Am 20.06.2014 14:19, schrieb Dan Kenigsberg:
the host was not fenced, the vms where fenced.
here is a link to the documentation which should explain what I mean:
https://access.redhat.com/site/documentation/en-US/Red_Hat_Enterprise_Virtualization/3.3/html/Administration_Guide/Virtual_Machine_Networks_and_Optional_Networks.html
Are you refering to the paragraph: "When a required network becomes
non-operational, the virtual machines running on the network are fenced
and migrated to another host. This is beneficial if you have machines
running mission critical workloads."?
yes
Isn't that section referring to HA VMs?
this is about a single host in a cluster - ovirt can't even fence
single hosts in a single cluster yet, see my other bug report for this:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1054778
I could provide logs if they are really necessary, but I doubt they are.
This is documented behaviour, but it is poorly designed, as described
in the BZ.
Apparently, I am not familiar enough with Engine's fencing logic; logs
may help me understand the issue, for me they are necessary is this
case. In particular, I'd like to see with my own eyes whether the VMs
where explicitly destroyed by Engine. Migrating VMs to an operational
destination makes a lot of sense. Destroying a running VM in attempt
to recuperate of a host networking issue is extraordinary (and as such,
requires exraordinary evidence).
I might be able to attach some logs later.
--
Regards,
Vinzenz Feenstra | Senior Software Engineer
RedHat Engineering Virtualization R & D
Phone: +420 532 294 625
IRC: vfeenstr or evilissimo
Better technology. Faster innovation. Powered by community collaboration.
See how it works at redhat.com
_______________________________________________
Users mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/users
