Sure, but CopyCommand is being triggered in this code. I've tested several variations to this one line, some work, some don't.
On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Edison Su <[email protected]> wrote: > For CLVM, the copy template from secondary to primary and create volume from > template logic is handled by CloudStackPrimaryDataStoreDriverImpl->copyAsync, > not in AncientDataMotionStrategy > You can check the code: 4fb459355337c874a10f47c0224af72d6fef1ff2. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: Marcus Sorensen [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2013 2:07 PM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: CLVM broken on master >> >> I think if we can change this line: >> >> if ((srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE) && >> (destData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && >> destData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary)) { >> >> to something like: >> >> if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && >> srcData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Image && >> destData.getDataStore().getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary) { >> >> Maybe that will work? That way it's strictly secondary -> primary templates, >> not primary->primary templates. >> >> Alternatively we could put it back to where it was: >> >> if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && srcDataStore >> instanceof NfsTO && destData.getDataStore().getRole() == >> DataStoreRole.Primary) { >> >> But your patch on the reviewboard removes NfsTO, and I'm assuming the >> idea was to work towards getting away from NFS-specific secondary storage. >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 2:57 PM, Marcus Sorensen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I ran that through my tester, it didn't like it. That actually kept >> > the system vms from starting. Since CopyCommand is used for both >> > template to template and template to primary, it seems that the >> > original template copy is fine but now this catches the case where the >> > source template is on primary and we are making a root disk. >> > copyTemplateToPrimaryStorage has: >> > >> > if (!(imageStore instanceof NfsTO)) { >> > return new CopyCmdAnswer("unsupported protocol"); >> > } >> > >> > we should be calling 'cloneVolumeFromBaseTemplate', but the original >> > if statement is now too loose. I'll play with it a bit and see if I >> > can suggest a solution that works. >> > >> > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,178 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] >> > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Request:Seq 1-829816935: { Cmd , >> > MgmtId: 52241639751, via: 1, Ver: v1, Flags: 100011, >> > >> [{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCommand":{"srcTO":{"org. >> a >> > pache.cloudstack.storage.to.TemplateObjectTO":{"path":"bf53a7c6-1fed-1 >> > 1e3-a1ff-000c29d82947","origUrl":"http://download.cloud.com/templates/ >> > 4.2/systemvmtemplate-2013-06-12-master- >> kvm.qcow2.bz2","uuid":"bf53a7c6 >> > -1fed-11e3-a1ff-000c29d82947","id":3,"format":"QCOW2","accountId":1,"c >> > >> hecksum":"6cea42b2633841648040becb588bd8f0","hvm":false,"displayText": >> > "SystemVM Template >> > (KVM)","imageDataStore":{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.PrimaryData >> > StoreTO":{"uuid":"8932daaf-272c-45c9-a078-d601dfc5ca56","id":1,"poolTy >> > pe":"Filesystem","host":"172.17.10.10","path":"/var/lib/libvirt/images >> > ","port":0}},"name":"routing-3","hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"destTO":{"or >> > g.apache.cloudstack.storage.to.VolumeObjectTO":{"uuid":"0c15b340-228b- >> > 48f1-88c4- >> b717ad08d4e3","volumeType":"ROOT","dataStore":{"org.apache.c >> > loudstack.storage.to.PrimaryDataStoreTO":{"uuid":"8932daaf-272c-45c9-a >> > 078-d601dfc5ca56","id":1,"poolType":"Filesystem","host":"172.17.10.10" >> > ,"path":"/var/lib/libvirt/images","port":0}},"name":"ROOT-1","size":0, >> > "volumeId":2,"vmName":"s-1- >> VM","accountId":1,"format":"QCOW2","id":2," >> > hypervisorType":"KVM"}},"executeInSequence":false,"wait":0}}] >> > } >> > >> > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,179 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] >> > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Processing command: >> > org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCommand >> > 2013-09-17 17:58:07,179 DEBUG [cloud.agent.Agent] >> > (agentRequest-Handler-2:null) Seq 1-829816935: { Ans: , MgmtId: >> > 52241639751, via: 1, Ver: v1, Flags: 10, >> > >> [{"org.apache.cloudstack.storage.command.CopyCmdAnswer":{"result":fals >> > e,"details":"unsupported >> > protocol","wait":0}}] } >> > >> > On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, SuichII, Christopher >> > <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Hm, interesting. >> >> >> >> Since nothing else in the if/else if series there depends on the src >> >> being a >> template, I'd imagine it would be safe to just have the check be: >> >> >> >> } else if (srcData.getObjectType() == DataObjectType.TEMPLATE && >> >> destDataStore.getRole() == DataStoreRole.Primary) { >> >> >> >> In hindsight, adding the check for the destination being a template was >> just overkill and shouldn't have been added. So, if that fixes your problem, >> I >> believe it is in line with that Edison and I were doing with the storage >> subsystem, however, we should check with him as well. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Chris Suich >> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> NetApp Software Engineer >> >> Data Center Platforms - Cloud Solutions Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat >> >> >> >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 3:29 PM, Marcus Sorensen >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> >> >> Actually, I don't think that will fix this (though it probably fixes >> >> something :-) >> >> >> >> The issue I'm having is that we went from 'if source is a template on >> >> nfs and destination is primary storage' to 'if source is a template >> >> and destination is a template on primary storage'. We aren't copying >> >> 'template on secondary' -> 'template on primary', with CLVM we copy >> >> 'template on secondary' -> 'root disk on primary', since it's >> >> wasteful and slow to copy a thin template (say a 50G img of size >> >> 500MB) to a template on primary that's 50G, and then copy that 50G >> >> primary template to another 50G primary root disk, since the primary >> >> storage is neither thin nor clone-able. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Marcus Sorensen >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Ok, let me test it. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 17, 2013 at 12:56 PM, SuichII, Christopher >> >> <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> Oh, I noticed this and created a fix, which I thought I already had >> submitted since it was a part of the storage refactoring a couple weeks back. >> I'll post the patch for review now. >> >> >> >> -- >> >> Chris Suich >> >> [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> >> >> NetApp Software Engineer >> >> Data Center Platforms - Cloud Solutions Citrix, Cisco & Red Hat >> >> >> >> On Oct 17, 2013, at 2:51 PM, Marcus Sorensen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> Just posting this to dev for visibility. >> >> >> >> I think commit 180cfa19 broke CLVM primary storage for KVM. I'm >> >> failing VM deploy from template. I've been building a 'sanity check' >> >> test that focuses on the KVM specific suff (tests storage types and >> >> supported host OS for now), and this bubbled up. >> >> >> >> Read more at: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-4887 >> >> >> >>
