CloudStack European User Group - CFP Ends Tomorrow

[Ivet Petrova]

Hello all,

The CFP (Call for Speakers) for the CloudStack European User Group is ending 
tomorrow. If you have an idea for a talk, take the last chance to submit it for 
the event! Next week we will be announcing the final event agenda!
https://forms.gle/TNjTUecmppTzRVdr8

Reminding  also that that the registration for the CloudStack European User 
Group is now open:
https://events.hubilo.com/cloudstack-european-user-group/register

Register on the link above and join the meet-up of the European community.


Kind regards,


 

Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

[Rohit Yadav]

+1 I've seen a lot of users and some of our customers use qemu-kvm-ev in 
production. However, we need to check if qemu-kvm-ev has 100% feature parity (I 
remember my colleague Andrija suggesting something which was missing in either 
stock qemu-kvm or qemu-kvm-ev).


Regards.


From: Slavka Peleva 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 23:58
To: dev 
Subject: Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

Hi Daniel,

+1 for qemu-kvm-ev. We also advise our customers to use it.

Best regards,
Slavka

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:51 PM Simon Weller 
wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> We've used qemu-kvm-ev in production for years. A number of the
> enhancements we've pushed into Cloudstack have required it. I think you'll
> find that most cloud providers based on Centos (or Alma/Rocky) are also
> using it.
>
> -Si
> 
> From: Daniel Salvador 
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 9:53 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
> Subject: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
>
> Hi all, hope you are doing fine.
>
> The following discussion emerged from PR #5297[¹].
>
> It is a known fact that, regarding KVM functionalities, CentOS7 default's
> QEMU binary is quite limited. This is due to the removal of some features
> of KVM default binary in CentOS (like VM's volume live migration,
> memory/CPU hotplug/hot-unplug, live disk snapshot, and so on); more
> information can be found in CentOS forum's thread[²].
>
> In my point of view, such limitations in the default QEMU binary in CentOS
> make it unfeasible to build a cloud with CentOS and the default QEMU
> binary, as operators lose a lot of useful/important operations or have to
> go through workarounds, which cause VM's disruption (e.g. having to stop a
> VM to migrate the volume between different storage pools, which triggers a
> secondary storage usage). There is an alternative binary, "qemu-kvm-ev",
> which supports more features than the default one. Probably, most people
> using KVM with CentOS are using the "ev" binary (I might be wrong though,
> however, that seems to be the case when looking at the users' list).
>
> PR #5297[¹] ran into one of the CentOS7 default's QEMU binary limitations
> (live disk snapshot). The easiest solution (and, IHMO, is the best option)
> is to guide users to upgrade CentOS7 QEMU binary to "qemu-kvm-ev".
>
> Further, it is important to mention that in our experience, it is not
> possible to run a highly available cloud environment with CentOS7 and the
> default binaries. In a cloud environment with thousands of VMs, sooner or
> later the need to hotplug (increase) CPU/RAM, migrate volumes across
> different storage pool tyles (such as iSCSI <> NFS), or some other type of
> operation appear, and operators/final customers do not want service
> disruption. Our customers, for instance, never shut down VMs for these
> kinds of operations, and that is only possible because they are all using
> KVM with Ubuntu now.
>
> Moreover, CentOS7 is getting close to its EOL. Therefore, We do not think
> that CloudStack should limit its features due to a dying operating system
> that presents very limited features by default.
>
> With that said, it would be interesting if dev/users that use CentOS7 could
> share their experiences with the "qemu-kvm-ev" in this thread, so we can
> decide which way to go. Or, users that only use the default binary, if they
> are satisfied with it.
>
> If almost no one is relying on default CentOS7 binaries, we could define as
> a step in the documentation, that when using CentOS7 people must use the
> "ev" binary. This would free us to evolve ACS more freely and avoid
> headaches with workarounds to a limited operating system when there are
> alternatives out there.
>
>
> [¹] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
> [²] https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.php?t=65618
>

 

Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

[Andrija Panic]

Hi all,

+1 in general,

but keep in mind that the "regular" qemu-kmv-ev from the CentOS SIG repo
does NOT support live storage migration (up to version 2.12 at least), and
qemu-kmv-ev from the oVirt repo (essentially a RHEV) need(ed) to be used
for live storage migration (virsh - - migrate-all...) to work. I'm not sure
if this has changed. but perhaps Simon or someone using qemu-kmv-ev may
advice.

Cheers,

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, 15:58 Rohit Yadav,  wrote:

> +1 I've seen a lot of users and some of our customers use qemu-kvm-ev in
> production. However, we need to check if qemu-kvm-ev has 100% feature
> parity (I remember my colleague Andrija suggesting something which was
> missing in either stock qemu-kvm or qemu-kvm-ev).
>
>
> Regards.
>
> 
> From: Slavka Peleva 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 23:58
> To: dev 
> Subject: Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
>
> Hi Daniel,
>
> +1 for qemu-kvm-ev. We also advise our customers to use it.
>
> Best regards,
> Slavka
>
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:51 PM Simon Weller 
> wrote:
>
> > Daniel,
> >
> > We've used qemu-kvm-ev in production for years. A number of the
> > enhancements we've pushed into Cloudstack have required it. I think
> you'll
> > find that most cloud providers based on Centos (or Alma/Rocky) are also
> > using it.
> >
> > -Si
> > 
> > From: Daniel Salvador 
> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 9:53 AM
> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
> > Subject: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
> >
> > Hi all, hope you are doing fine.
> >
> > The following discussion emerged from PR #5297[¹].
> >
> > It is a known fact that, regarding KVM functionalities, CentOS7 default's
> > QEMU binary is quite limited. This is due to the removal of some features
> > of KVM default binary in CentOS (like VM's volume live migration,
> > memory/CPU hotplug/hot-unplug, live disk snapshot, and so on); more
> > information can be found in CentOS forum's thread[²].
> >
> > In my point of view, such limitations in the default QEMU binary in
> CentOS
> > make it unfeasible to build a cloud with CentOS and the default QEMU
> > binary, as operators lose a lot of useful/important operations or have to
> > go through workarounds, which cause VM's disruption (e.g. having to stop
> a
> > VM to migrate the volume between different storage pools, which triggers
> a
> > secondary storage usage). There is an alternative binary, "qemu-kvm-ev",
> > which supports more features than the default one. Probably, most people
> > using KVM with CentOS are using the "ev" binary (I might be wrong though,
> > however, that seems to be the case when looking at the users' list).
> >
> > PR #5297[¹] ran into one of the CentOS7 default's QEMU binary limitations
> > (live disk snapshot). The easiest solution (and, IHMO, is the best
> option)
> > is to guide users to upgrade CentOS7 QEMU binary to "qemu-kvm-ev".
> >
> > Further, it is important to mention that in our experience, it is not
> > possible to run a highly available cloud environment with CentOS7 and the
> > default binaries. In a cloud environment with thousands of VMs, sooner or
> > later the need to hotplug (increase) CPU/RAM, migrate volumes across
> > different storage pool tyles (such as iSCSI <> NFS), or some other type
> of
> > operation appear, and operators/final customers do not want service
> > disruption. Our customers, for instance, never shut down VMs for these
> > kinds of operations, and that is only possible because they are all using
> > KVM with Ubuntu now.
> >
> > Moreover, CentOS7 is getting close to its EOL. Therefore, We do not think
> > that CloudStack should limit its features due to a dying operating system
> > that presents very limited features by default.
> >
> > With that said, it would be interesting if dev/users that use CentOS7
> could
> > share their experiences with the "qemu-kvm-ev" in this thread, so we can
> > decide which way to go. Or, users that only use the default binary, if
> they
> > are satisfied with it.
> >
> > If almost no one is relying on default CentOS7 binaries, we could define
> as
> > a step in the documentation, that when using CentOS7 people must use the
> > "ev" binary. This would free us to evolve ACS more freely and avoid
> > headaches with workarounds to a limited operating system when there are
> > alternatives out there.
> >
> >
> > [¹] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
> > [²] https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.php?t=65618
> >
>
>
>
>

Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

[Andrija Panic]

BTW, if we make this a requirement (decide so, internally) we should have
this heavily emphasised in the next release Release Notes (and this also,
perhaps, warrants sending some special ANNOUNCE or similar email to user
and dev mailing lists - to avoid having seriously pissed off users.

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, 23:06 Andrija Panic,  wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> +1 in general,
>
> but keep in mind that the "regular" qemu-kmv-ev from the CentOS SIG repo
> does NOT support live storage migration (up to version 2.12 at least), and
> qemu-kmv-ev from the oVirt repo (essentially a RHEV) need(ed) to be used
> for live storage migration (virsh - - migrate-all...) to work. I'm not sure
> if this has changed. but perhaps Simon or someone using qemu-kmv-ev may
> advice.
>
> Cheers,
>
> On Thu, 24 Feb 2022, 15:58 Rohit Yadav,  wrote:
>
>> +1 I've seen a lot of users and some of our customers use qemu-kvm-ev in
>> production. However, we need to check if qemu-kvm-ev has 100% feature
>> parity (I remember my colleague Andrija suggesting something which was
>> missing in either stock qemu-kvm or qemu-kvm-ev).
>>
>>
>> Regards.
>>
>> 
>> From: Slavka Peleva 
>> Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 23:58
>> To: dev 
>> Subject: Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
>>
>> Hi Daniel,
>>
>> +1 for qemu-kvm-ev. We also advise our customers to use it.
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Slavka
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:51 PM Simon Weller 
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Daniel,
>> >
>> > We've used qemu-kvm-ev in production for years. A number of the
>> > enhancements we've pushed into Cloudstack have required it. I think
>> you'll
>> > find that most cloud providers based on Centos (or Alma/Rocky) are also
>> > using it.
>> >
>> > -Si
>> > 
>> > From: Daniel Salvador 
>> > Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 9:53 AM
>> > To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
>> > Subject: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
>> >
>> > Hi all, hope you are doing fine.
>> >
>> > The following discussion emerged from PR #5297[¹].
>> >
>> > It is a known fact that, regarding KVM functionalities, CentOS7
>> default's
>> > QEMU binary is quite limited. This is due to the removal of some
>> features
>> > of KVM default binary in CentOS (like VM's volume live migration,
>> > memory/CPU hotplug/hot-unplug, live disk snapshot, and so on); more
>> > information can be found in CentOS forum's thread[²].
>> >
>> > In my point of view, such limitations in the default QEMU binary in
>> CentOS
>> > make it unfeasible to build a cloud with CentOS and the default QEMU
>> > binary, as operators lose a lot of useful/important operations or have
>> to
>> > go through workarounds, which cause VM's disruption (e.g. having to
>> stop a
>> > VM to migrate the volume between different storage pools, which
>> triggers a
>> > secondary storage usage). There is an alternative binary, "qemu-kvm-ev",
>> > which supports more features than the default one. Probably, most people
>> > using KVM with CentOS are using the "ev" binary (I might be wrong
>> though,
>> > however, that seems to be the case when looking at the users' list).
>> >
>> > PR #5297[¹] ran into one of the CentOS7 default's QEMU binary
>> limitations
>> > (live disk snapshot). The easiest solution (and, IHMO, is the best
>> option)
>> > is to guide users to upgrade CentOS7 QEMU binary to "qemu-kvm-ev".
>> >
>> > Further, it is important to mention that in our experience, it is not
>> > possible to run a highly available cloud environment with CentOS7 and
>> the
>> > default binaries. In a cloud environment with thousands of VMs, sooner
>> or
>> > later the need to hotplug (increase) CPU/RAM, migrate volumes across
>> > different storage pool tyles (such as iSCSI <> NFS), or some other type
>> of
>> > operation appear, and operators/final customers do not want service
>> > disruption. Our customers, for instance, never shut down VMs for these
>> > kinds of operations, and that is only possible because they are all
>> using
>> > KVM with Ubuntu now.
>> >
>> > Moreover, CentOS7 is getting close to its EOL. Therefore, We do not
>> think
>> > that CloudStack should limit its features due to a dying operating
>> system
>> > that presents very limited features by default.
>> >
>> > With that said, it would be interesting if dev/users that use CentOS7
>> could
>> > share their experiences with the "qemu-kvm-ev" in this thread, so we can
>> > decide which way to go. Or, users that only use the default binary, if
>> they
>> > are satisfied with it.
>> >
>> > If almost no one is relying on default CentOS7 binaries, we could
>> define as
>> > a step in the documentation, that when using CentOS7 people must use the
>> > "ev" binary. This would free us to evolve ACS more freely and avoid
>> > headaches with workarounds to a limited operating system when there are
>> > alternatives out there.
>> >
>> >
>> > [¹] https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/5297
>> > [²] https://forums.centos.org/viewtopic.ph

Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

[Sven Vogel]

We use only the qemu-kvm-ev.

__

Sven Vogel
Senior Manager Research and Development - Cloud and Infrastructure

EWERK DIGITAL GmbH
Brühl 24, D-04109 Leipzig
P +49 341 42649 - 99
F +49 341 42649 - 98
s.vo...@ewerk.com
www.ewerk.com

Geschäftsführer:
Dr. Erik Wende, Hendrik Schubert, Markus Böttcher
Registergericht: Leipzig HRB 9065

Support:
+49 341 42649 555

Zertifiziert nach:
ISO/IEC 27001:2013
DIN EN ISO 9001:2015
DIN ISO/IEC 2-1:2018

ISAE 3402 Typ II Assessed

EWERK-Blog | 
LinkedIn | 
Xing | 
Twitter | 
Facebook


Auskünfte und Angebote per Mail sind freibleibend und unverbindlich.

Disclaimer Privacy:
Der Inhalt dieser E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) ist 
vertraulich und nur für den Empfänger bestimmt. Sollten Sie nicht der 
bestimmungsgemäße Empfänger sein, ist Ihnen jegliche Offenlegung, 
Vervielfältigung, Weitergabe oder Nutzung des Inhalts untersagt. Bitte 
informieren Sie in diesem Fall unverzüglich den Absender und löschen Sie die 
E-Mail (einschließlich etwaiger beigefügter Dateien) von Ihrem System. Vielen 
Dank.

The contents of this e-mail (including any attachments) are confidential and 
may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of this 
e-mail, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of its contents is 
strictly prohibited, and you should please notify the sender immediately and 
then delete it (including any attachments) from your system. Thank you.


Von: Rohit Yadav 
Gesendet: Thursday, February 24, 2022 3:56:56 PM
An: dev 
Cc: Andrija Panic 
Betreff: Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

+1 I've seen a lot of users and some of our customers use qemu-kvm-ev in 
production. However, we need to check if qemu-kvm-ev has 100% feature parity (I 
remember my colleague Andrija suggesting something which was missing in either 
stock qemu-kvm or qemu-kvm-ev).


Regards.


From: Slavka Peleva 
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2022 23:58
To: dev 
Subject: Re: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries

Hi Daniel,

+1 for qemu-kvm-ev. We also advise our customers to use it.

Best regards,
Slavka

On Fri, Feb 18, 2022 at 8:51 PM Simon Weller 
wrote:

> Daniel,
>
> We've used qemu-kvm-ev in production for years. A number of the
> enhancements we've pushed into Cloudstack have required it. I think you'll
> find that most cloud providers based on Centos (or Alma/Rocky) are also
> using it.
>
> -Si
> 
> From: Daniel Salvador 
> Sent: Friday, February 18, 2022 9:53 AM
> To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org 
> Subject: [Discussion] CentOS 7 KVM binaries
>
> Hi all, hope you are doing fine.
>
> The following discussion emerged from PR #5297[¹].
>
> It is a known fact that, regarding KVM functionalities, CentOS7 default's
> QEMU binary is quite limited. This is due to the removal of some features
> of KVM default binary in CentOS (like VM's volume live migration,
> memory/CPU hotplug/hot-unplug, live disk snapshot, and so on); more
> information can be found in CentOS forum's thread[²].
>
> In my point of view, such limitations in the default QEMU binary in CentOS
> make it unfeasible to build a cloud with CentOS and the default QEMU
> binary, as operators lose a lot of useful/important operations or have to
> go through workarounds, which cause VM's disruption (e.g. having to stop a
> VM to migrate the volume between different storage pools, which triggers a
> secondary storage usage). There is an alternative binary, "qemu-kvm-ev",
> which supports more features than the default one. Probably, most people
> using KVM with CentOS are using the "ev" binary (I might be wrong though,
> however, that seems to be the case when looking at the users' list).
>
> PR #5297[¹] ran into one of the CentOS7 default's QEMU binary limitations
> (live disk snapshot). The easiest solution (and, IHMO, is the best option)
> is to guide users to upgrade CentOS7 QEMU binary to "qemu-kvm-ev".
>
> Further, it is important to mention that in our experience, it is not
> possible to run a highly available cloud environment with CentOS7 and the
> default binaries. In a cloud environment with thousands of VMs, sooner or
> later the need to hotplug (increase) CPU/RAM, migrate volumes across
> different storage pool tyles (such as iSCSI <> NFS), or some other type of
> operation appear, and operators/final customers do not want service
> disruption. Our customers, for instance, never shut down VMs for these
> kinds of operations, and that is only possible because they are all using
> KVM with Ubuntu now.
>
> Moreover, CentOS7 is getting close to its EOL. Therefore, We do not think
> that CloudStack should limit its features due to a dying operating system
> that presents very limited features by default.
>
> With that said, it