> On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:31, aleksey.maksi...@it-kb.ru wrote:
> Hi Simone.
> Now I'll put the journald on the guest and try to understand how the guest
> 16.09.2016, 16:25, "Simone Tiraboschi" <stira...@redhat.com>:
>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Michal Skrivanek
>> <michal.skriva...@redhat.com <mailto:michal.skriva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> On 16 Sep 2016, at 15:05, Gianluca Cecchi <gianluca.cec...@gmail.com
>>> <mailto:gianluca.cec...@gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Sep 16, 2016 at 2:50 PM, Michal Skrivanek
>>> <michal.skriva...@redhat.com <mailto:michal.skriva...@redhat.com>> wrote:
>>> no, that’s not how HA works today. When you log into a guest and issue
>>> “shutdown” we do not restart the VM under your hands. We can argue how it
>>> should or may work, but this is the defined behavior since the dawn of
>>>> AFAIK that's correct, we need to be able shutdown HA VM without
>>>> being it immediately restarted on different host. We want to restart HA VM
>>>> only if host, where HA VM is running, is non-responsive.
>>> we try to restart it in all other cases other than user initiated shutdown,
>>> e.g. a QEMU process crash on an otherwise-healthy host
>>> Hi, just another question in case HA is not configured at all.
>> by “HA configured” I expect you’re referring to the “Highly Available”
>> checkbox in Edit VM dialog.
>>> If I run the "shutdown -h now" command on an host where some VMs are
>>> running, what is the expected behavior?
>>> Clean VM shutdown (with or without timeout in case it doesn't complete?) or
>>> crash of their related QEMU processes?
>> expectation is that you won’t do that. That’s why there is the Maintenance
>> host state.
>> But if you do that regardless, with VMs running, all the processes will be
>> terminated in a regular system way, i.e. all QEMU processes get SIGTERM.
>> From the perspective of each guest this is not a clean shutdown and it would
>> just get killed
>> Aleksey is reporting that he started a shutdown on his host by power
>> management and the VM processes didn't get roughly killed but smoothly shut
>> down and so they didn't restarted regardless of their HA flag and so this
Gianluca talks about “shutdown -h now”, you talk about power management action,
those are two different things. The current idea is that systemd or some other
component just propagates the action to the guest and if that guest is
configured to handle it as a shutdown it starts it itself as well so it looks
like a user-initiated one. Even though this mostly makes sense it is not ok for
current HA logic
>>> Users mailing list
>>> Users@ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
>> Users mailing list
>> Users@ovirt.org <mailto:Users@ovirt.org>
> Users mailing list
Users mailing list