Re: Problem with CLOUDSTACK-10240 (Cannot migrate local volume to shared storage)
OK, as Rafael noted, looks like it’s in 4.11.2. My regression tests were run against 4.11.1. I thought we only allowed bug fixes when going to a new RC, but it appears we are not strictly enforcing that rule.
On 7/16/18, 1:40 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
When I ran my suite of tests on 4.11.1, I did not encounter this issue. Also, looking at the code now, it appears this new code is first in 4.12.
On 7/16/18, 1:36 PM, "Yiping Zhang" <yzhang@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Is this code already in ACS 22.214.171.124?
CLOUDSTACK-10240 is listed as fixed in 126.96.36.199, according to release note here, http://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/projects/cloudstack-release-notes/ja/master/fixed_issues.html, but in the JIRA ticket itself, the "fixed version/s" field says 4.12.
We are using XenServer clusters with shared NFS storages and I am about to migrate to ACS 188.8.131.52 from 184.108.40.206. Since we move VM between clusters a lot, this is going to be a blocker for us. Someone please confirm.
On 7/14/18, 11:20 PM, "Tutkowski, Mike" <Mike.Tutkowski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
While running managed-storage regression tests tonight, I noticed a problem that is not related to managed storage.
CLOUDSTACK-10240 is a ticket asking that we allow the migration of a virtual disk that’s on local storage to shared storage. In the process of enabling this feature, the VirtualMachineManagerImpl.getPoolListForVolumesForMigration method was re-written in a way that completely breaks at least one use case: Migrating a VM across compute clusters (at least supported in XenServer). If, say, a virtual disk resides on shared storage in the source compute cluster, we must be able to copy this virtual disk to shared storage in the destination compute cluster.
As the code is currently written, this is no longer possible. It also seems that the managed-storage logic has been dropped for some reason in the new implementation.
Rafael – It seems that you worked on this feature. Would you be able to look into this and create a PR?