According to
http://support.citrix.com/proddocs/topic/xencenter-61/xs-xc-pools-ha-about.
html
XS HA is about dealing with host failures.
However CS HA also deals with individual VM failures ("fast restart"). I
hope you are not removing fast VM restart.
On 11/26/13 6:54 AM, "David Nalley" <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>Hi Koushik:
>
>Thanks for the reply - a few followup comments inline. I look forward
>to seeing this work.
>
>Other folks: please read the entire thread and the links from Koushik;
>there's a planned deprecation here.
>
>--David
>
>On Mon, Nov 25, 2013 at 2:38 AM, Koushik Das <koushik....@citrix.com>
>wrote:
>> Thanks for the comments David. See inline.
>>
>> -Koushik
>>
>> On 22-Nov-2013, at 7:31 PM, David Nalley <da...@gnsa.us> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Koushik:
>>>
>>> In general I like the idea. A couple of comments:
>>>
>>> The upgrade section has a manual step for enabling HA manually per
>>> instance. Why a manual step? Why is CloudStack not checking the
>>> desired state (e.g. if HA is enabled in the instance service group)
>>> with the actual state (what is reflected on the hypervisor) and
>>> changing it when appropriate.
>>>
>>> We are already going to need to reconcile the state (things like host
>>> the instance is running on will change for instance) with reality
>>> already - so it seems like making this an automatic step wouldn't be
>>> much extra effort and would scale far easier.
>>
>> [Koushik] Are you suggesting that as part of the upgrade process, all
>>impacted VMs should be automatically updated? If so, yes it can be done.
>>For now I am keeping it manual, in future the process can be automated.
>>
>
>Why keeping it manual now? Actually let me rephrase - I can understand
>why someone might not want things changed automagically (as an admin
>I'd want nothing changed by default, but changed if I cared about it
>in some automated fashion) Is there a reason we would not include some
>functionality to let the operator automatically change this on some
>subset or all of the machines in an automated fashion?
>
>>>
>>> Are there plans on deprecating the custom HA solution, or will it be
>>> supported forever? If the plan is to deprecate, lets go ahead and
>>> start planning that/announcing/etc and not let it fall into disrepair.
>>
>> [Koushik] That's the plan going forward. For the next release both
>>options will be there. Maybe post that the custom HA solution can be
>>removed for XS 6.2 and above.
>>
>>>
>
>Please make sure that the deprecation is explicitly called out. E.g
>will be present but deprecated in 4.4 and removed in 4.5; and let's
>make sure a doc bug gets filed when this is ready for merge.
>
>--David
