> -----Original Message----- > From: Abhinandan Prateek [mailto:abhinandan.prat...@citrix.com] > Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2012 9:20 PM > To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enabling storage xenmotion on xenserver 6.1 > > > > On 19/12/12 12:13 PM, "Devdeep Singh" <devdeep.si...@citrix.com> > wrote: > > >> -----Original Message----- > >> From: Chip Childers [mailto:chip.child...@sungard.com] > >> Sent: Tuesday, December 18, 2012 9:07 PM > >> To: cloudstack-dev@incubator.apache.org > >> Subject: Re: [DISCUSS] Enabling storage xenmotion on xenserver 6.1 > >> > >> On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 3:39 AM, Devdeep Singh > >> <devdeep.si...@citrix.com> wrote: > >> > Hi, > >> > > >> > XenServer introduced support for Storage XenMotion in the latest > >>version > >> (6.1). Storage XenMotion allows VMs to be moved from one host to > >>another, where the VMs are not located on storage shared between the > >>two hosts. > >>It > >> provides the option to live migrate a VM's disks along with the VM > >>itself. It is now possible to migrate a VM from one resource pool to > >>another, or to migrate a VM whose disks are on local storage, or even > >>to migrate a VM's disks from one storage repository to another, all > >>while the VM is running. > >>More > >> information on Storage XenMotion can be found at [1]. > >> > > >> > I have filed a jira request [2] to track this feature. I plan to > >>extend the > >> migrate vm cloudstack api call to allow migration of instances across > >>clusters. > >> Do let me know your comments. > >> > > >> > [1] http://blogs.citrix.com/2012/08/24/storage_xenmotion/ > >> > [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-659 > >> > > >> > Regards, > >> > Devdeep > >> > > >> > >> +1 to this feature. > >> > >> Do you have thoughts on how the API call respond when the underlying > >> hypervisor doesn't support this feature? > > > >My thinking was to fail that operation with a message saying that it > >requires storage motion and the hypervisor doesn't support it. One way > >would be for cloudstack to check if moving the instance/vm to a new > >host requires moving its storage. If so and the underlying hypervisor > >doesn't support it, cloudstack could fail the migration request. > > > >Regards, > >Devdeep > > Instead of failing the migration request can't we warn the initiator that the > VM > will be stopped and migrated ? > It will be known before hand as to what Hypervisor do not support live > migration. > -abhi > >
If the hypervisor doesn't support it, shouldn't we just fail the request with a proper message. The user/admin can shutdown the vm and then move/migrate it. The behavior would be similar to how cloudstack currently lets the VM volumes be migrated to another storage pool. Regards, Devdeep
