<div dir="ltr">Hi Marlok,<div><br></div><div>I agree with what you said, it would be much better to remove the requirement of CLVM, but I have a couple of concerns. Let's see if we can find a solution to that together and decide if we can squeeze this one in for OpenNebula 4.0. Let me explain you the main problem I see.</div>
<div><br></div><div style>So, the main concern here is that in the shared_lvm TM drivers, you're operating directly on the frontend, and I think that will pose a problem if you want to have multiple LVM based datastores. I don't think it's a correct approach to force the OpenNebula admins to use the OpenNebula frontend as their LVM primary node.</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>If you take a look at the DS/LVM drivers in the 'master' branch, you'll see that we extract the LVM primary node's hostname via the 'HOST' attribute of the datastore template [1]</div>
<div style>The problem is, that we don't have that information in the TM drivers. A solution would be to execute "onedatastore <id>" and extract the datatostore's LVM primary node for each operation: cp, ln, mvds, etc...</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>One we have we have the name of the lvm primary node, we could follow your approach: operate (clone, create, remove, etc...) in that node and refresh it the nodes via lvscan and lvchange...</div>
<div style><br></div><div style>any thoughts?</div><div style><br></div><div style>[1] <a href="https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/blob/master/src/datastore_mad/remotes/lvm/clone#L56">https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/blob/master/src/datastore_mad/remotes/lvm/clone#L56</a></div>
<div>
<br></div><div style>cheers,<br>Jaime</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Mar 12, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Marlok Tamás <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tmarlok@sztaki.hu" target="_blank">tmarlok@sztaki.hu</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Jaime,<br><br>I examined the new lvm driver and compared it with shared_lvm.<br>I think, the only difference between them, is that in shared_lvm all of the lvm commands are executed on the frontend (as we described in here: <a href="http://wiki.opennebula.org/shared_lvm" target="_blank">http://wiki.opennebula.org/shared_lvm</a>).<br>
I would like to suggest, that you should consider to adapt this behaviour in the new lvm driver.<br>(Or in the case of the one driver, the HOST configured in the datastore config should execute this commands, but not the host, running the VM.)<br>
<br>I can't see any drawback of this approach, but in this way, CLVM wouldn't be necessary (refer the wiki article).<br><br>We couldn't use CLVM for various reasons, but it would be much easier for us (I think not just for us) if we could use the LVM driver already implemented in OpenNebula, instead of shared_lvm.<br>
<br>I see, that in the datastore driver scripts this is the current behaviour. So only the tm scripts should be modified.<br><br>If you can agree with this, but don't have the time for implementing, just let me know, I can create a patch for you. Or if I am wrong let me know that too :).<br>
<br><div>Cheers,<br>Tamas</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:52 PM, Jaime Melis <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jmelis@opennebula.org" target="_blank">jmelis@opennebula.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Oops, you're right.<br>
<br>
Ok, so, can you test the upcoming LVM drivers for OpenNebula 4.0? It<br>
replaces snapshotting with cloning...<br>
<br>
just replace /var/lib/one/remotes/tm/lvm<br>
with the contents of:<br>
<a href="https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/tree/master/src/tm_mad/lvm" target="_blank">https://github.com/OpenNebula/one/tree/master/src/tm_mad/lvm</a><br>
<br>
and do "onehost sync" afterwards?<br>
<br>
<br>
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Tobias Honacker<br>
<<a href="mailto:t.honacker@googlemail.com" target="_blank">t.honacker@googlemail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
<div><div><br>
> Hi Jaime,<br>
><br>
> yes you are right. I posted the error log file with TM_MAD="lvm", too. I<br>
> tried both TM_MAD=shared and lvm.<br>
> I will try the links Mihály Héder already posted. But maybe you have got<br>
> any other ideas?<br>
><br>
><br>
> Best regards,<br>
> Tobias<br>
><br>
><br>
> Am 21.02.2013 um 18:37 schrieb Jaime Melis:<br>
><br>
> Actually, it's "onedatastore update 100", not "onetemplate"... sorry<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Jaime Melis <<a href="mailto:jmelis@opennebula.org" target="_blank">jmelis@opennebula.org</a>>wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Hi Tobias,<br>
>><br>
>> your datastore template has the wrong TM_MAD. It should be TM_MAD="lvm"<br>
>> instead of TM_MAD="shared".<br>
>><br>
>> You can fix it by doing "onetemplate update 100" and editing it in-place</div></div></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><div><br></div>-- <br>Jaime Melis<br>Project Engineer<br>OpenNebula - The Open Source Toolkit for Cloud Computing<br><a href="http://www.OpenNebula.org" target="_blank">www.OpenNebula.org</a> | <a href="mailto:jmelis@opennebula.org" target="_blank">jmelis@opennebula.org</a>
</div>