lostogre at gmail
Jul 31, 2012, 10:43 AM
Post #3 of 3
(156 views)
Permalink
|
I'll try those; thanks.
d.p.
On Sun, Jul 29, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Andrew Beekhof <andrew [at] beekhof> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 2:26 PM, David Pendell <lostogre [at] gmail> wrote:
> > I have two cluster nodes that have a gigabit network between them for
> doing
> > live migrations of running kvm VMs. If one of the two hosts go off line,
> > naturally all of the guests then get restarted on the other host. But
> when
> > the offline host then comes back online, all of the guests that were
> > restarted on the "online" host then try to do a live migration. Given
> that I
> > only have one gigabit link for doing the transfers, this creates a log
> jam.
> > The result is that the VMs that timeout then do a "move" or rather
> shutdown
> > VMs to restart them on the newly online node. For my Linux guests, this
> is
> > annoying, but with a Windows VM it is a disaster, locking a very
> impatient
> > dept out of their server for 3-4 minutes. ( One might think that this is
> a
> > miracle, given that before I set up the cluster a server reboot would
> take
> > ten minutes. Sigh. )
> >
> > I would like to make the migrations sequential so that the Windows VM can
> > migrate first, and then the next most important Linux VMs, etc. Is there
> any
> > way to do this?
> >
> > Beekhof suggested that there were several alternatives and that the
> mailing
> > list would be the best place to ask.
>
> You could try creating an ordering constraint between the two VMs, or
> setting batch-limit really small.
> I think there were some other options too.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Pacemaker mailing list: Pacemaker [at] oss
> http://oss.clusterlabs.org/mailman/listinfo/pacemaker
>
> Project Home: http://www.clusterlabs.org
> Getting started: http://www.clusterlabs.org/doc/Cluster_from_Scratch.pdf
> Bugs: http://bugs.clusterlabs.org
>
|
