I have a similar need and would like to know how this change-over goes.

This seems like a common thing to do as you grow your cloud.

On Wed, Feb 10, 2016 at 10:39 PM, Rohan T <[email protected]> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>
> We're attempting to make a production change to a CloudStack deployment
> (currently installed at 4.4.1), where we want to change the scope of the
> attached primary storage from being attached at ZONE scope to CLUSTER scope
> (this deployment currently has exactly 1 zone, 1 pod and 1 cluster in use).
>
> The purpose of the change is to allow us to deploy a second primary storage
> device to a new cluster, providing no single points of failure within the
> system.
>
> (Note: adding 2 primary storage devices to the same zone has had the
> opposite effect, effectively halving the reliability of the system since
> each node considers failure of _any_ NFS primary storage to be sufficient
> grounds to initiate a HA reboot event).
>
> All VM's are KVM, all used storage is NFS shared storage.  There are dozens
> of deployed VM's running and 20 hosts deployed.
>
> The expectation is that this change would be made during a system
> maintenance event (and shutdown), but the hope is that we can effect this
> change without complete removal of the storage and associated redeployment
> of all VMs.
>
> I note that the design notes for 4.2 (where storage scope was introduced),
> indicate that the major design change that needs to be accounted for was
> the that a column, called scope, was added into storage_pool table.
> (see:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Zone-wide+primary+storage+target
> ).
>
> This suggests that the change could be as trivial as:
> 0. Shutdown of cloudstack management server.
> 1.  Identifying the primary storage device in cloud.storage_pool.
> 2.  Changing the 'scope' field from 'ZONE' to 'CLUSTER'.
> 3.  Populating the 'pod_id' and 'cluster_id' fields to reflect the
> appropriate pod & cluster.
> 4.  Restart cloudstack.
>
> Questions:
>
> 1. Has anyone attempted a similar migration?
> 2. Is this the way it's designed to work (in 4.4.1)?  Are there any other
> values to be accounted for?
> 3. Is there another way to effect this through an API/UI? (We would
> consider an upgrade if this is supported in a later release)?
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Rohan
>

Reply via email to