9 PM
To: 'Cloudstack Developers';
cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org<mailto:cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org>
Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
CS 3.0.2 is too old version.
I'm pretty sure mount & copy on the same host in 3.0.4 and 3.0.5.
If mount & copy might be on diff
Inc.
> http://www.tls.net
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 1:59 PM
> To: 'Cloudstack Developers'; cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org
> Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
>
>
ry, or, adjust the ratio between full snapshot
> and
> > incremental snapshot to reduce the times of full snapshot.
> >
> > Mice
> >
> >
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Matthew Hartmann [mailto:mhartm...@tls.net]
> > Sent: 2012-12-4 (星期二) 2:31
> &
hartm...@tls.net]
> Sent: 2012-12-4 (星期二) 2:31
> To: cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 'Cloudstack Developers'
> Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
>
> Anthony:
>
> Thank you for the prompt and informative reply.
>
> > I'm pretty sure mount and copy
stack Developers'; cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org
Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
CS 3.0.2 is too old version.
I'm pretty sure mount & copy on the same host in 3.0.4 and 3.0.5.
If mount & copy might be on different hosts, the issue is very likely to
happen.
I did
Hartmann [mailto:mhartm...@tls.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 10:31 AM
> To: cloudstack-us...@incubator.apache.org
> Cc: 'Cloudstack Developers'
> Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
>
> Anthony:
>
> Thank you for the prompt and informative reply.
>
&g
812.378.4100 x 850 | E: mhartm...@tls.net
TLS.NET, Inc.
http://www.tls.net
-Original Message-
From: Anthony Xu [mailto:xuefei...@citrix.com]
Sent: Monday, December 03, 2012 12:31 PM
To: Cloudstack Users
Cc: Cloudstack Developers
Subject: RE: XenServer & VM Snapshots
Hi Matthew,
You an
Hi Matthew,
You analysis is correct except following,
>I must mention that the same Compute Node that ran sparse_dd or mounted
>Secondary Storage is not always the same. It appears the Management Server is
>simply round-robining through the list of >Compute Nodes and using the first
>one that
