Open Stack

I am +1 on this response as well.  Seems like having live or cold migrations follow the same pattern/states would make sense.

___________________________________________________________________
Kris Lindgren
Senior Linux Systems Engineer
GoDaddy

From: David Medberry <openstack at medberry.net<mailto:openstack at medberry.net>>
Date: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 4:05 PM
To: Andrew Laski <andrew at lascii.com<mailto:andrew at lascii.com>>
Cc: "openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>" <openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>>
Subject: Re: [Openstack-operators] [Nova] Significance of Error Vs Failed status

So I'm a big ol' -0- don't care on this. We've never used that list before (but will now). Seems like it would be useful though to have it the same for l-m and cold migration.

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Andrew Laski <andrew at lascii.com<mailto:andrew at lascii.com>> wrote:



On Wed, May 11, 2016, at 11:10 AM, David Medberry wrote:
Kekane,

Hi,

This setting, how does it display in the "nova show $UUID" or in the "openstack server show $UUID"? Ie, I don't want a VM showing ERROR state if the VM itself is not in error. A failed migration doesn't leave the VM down (well, not always) but error generally implies it is down. If this is more of an internal status, then +1. I'll look at the code shortly but wanted to get a reply off first.

To clarify, this is only about the state of a migration not an instance. If as an admin you list or show your migrations this would affect how that is displayed. Nothing about the instance, or how it's displayed, will change.



ALSO: It would have been very very helpful to see "live-migration" in the subject line.


-d

On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 12:55 AM, Kekane, Abhishek <Abhishek.Kekane at nttdata.com<mailto:Abhishek.Kekane at nttdata.com>> wrote:

Hi Operators,



Could you please provide your opinion on below mail. I need to discuss this in coming nova meeting (12 May, 2016).



Thank you,



Abhishek Kekane



From: Kekane, Abhishek [mailto:Abhishek.Kekane at nttdata.com<mailto:Abhishek.Kekane at nttdata.com>]
Sent: Monday, May 09, 2016 7:22 AM
To: openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:openstack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
Subject: [Openstack-operators] [Nova] Significance of Error Vs Failed status



Hi All,

In Liberty release, we had upstream [1] a security fix to cleanup orphaned instance files from compute nodes for resize operation. To fix this security issue, a new periodic task '_cleanup_incomplete_migrations’ was introduced that runs on each compute node which queries for deleted instances and migration status in “error” status. If there are any such instances, then it simply cleanup instance files on that particular compute node.

Similar issue is reported in LP bug [2] for Live-migration operation and we would like to use the same periodic task to fix this problem. But in case of live migration, the migration status is set to “failed” instead of “error” status if migration fails for any reason. This change was introduced in patch [3] when migration object support was added for live migration. Due to this inconsistency, the periodic task will not pickup instances to cleanup orphaned instance files. To fix this problem, we simply want to set the migration status to “error” in patch [4] same as done for resize operation to bring consistency to the code.

We have discussed about this issue in the nova meeting [5] and decided that to the client, migration status 'error' vs. 'failed' should be considered the same thing, it's a failure. From operators point of view, is there any significance of setting migration status to 'error' or 'failed', if yes what is it and what impact it will have if migration status is changed from 'failed' to 'error'. Please provide your opinions on the same.



[1] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/219299

[2] : https://bugs.launchpad.net/nova/+bug/1470420

[3] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/183331

[4] https://review.openstack.org/#/c/215483

[5] http://eavesdrop.openstack.org/irclogs/%23openstack-meeting/%23openstack-meeting.2016-05-05.log.html#t2016-05-05T14:40:51

Thank You,

Abhishek



______________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence
for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged,
confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient,
please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete
and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying
or forwarding.



______________________________________________________________________
Disclaimer: This email and any attachments are sent in strictest confidence
for the sole use of the addressee and may contain legally privileged,
confidential, and proprietary data. If you are not the intended recipient,
please advise the sender by replying promptly to this email and then delete
and destroy this email and any attachments without any further use, copying
or forwarding.

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators

_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


_______________________________________________
OpenStack-operators mailing list
OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org<mailto:OpenStack-operators at lists.openstack.org>
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-operators


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openstack.org/pipermail/openstack-operators/attachments/20160511/f6058e98/attachment.html>