On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 04:03:50PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 14:57:17 +0000, Daniel P. Berrange wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 03:50:41PM +0100, Jiri Denemark wrote:
> > When libvirt is starting a domain, it reports the state as SHUTOFF until
> > it's RUNNING. This is not ideal because domain startup may take a long
> > time (usually because of some configuration issues, firewalls blocking
> > access to network disks, etc.) and domain lists provided by libvirt look
> > awkward. One can see weird shutoff domains with IDs in a list of active
> > domains or even shutoff transient domains. In any case, it looks more
> > like a bug in libvirt than a normal state a domain goes through.
>
> A shutoff transient domain isn't too bad IMHO, but a shutoff domain
> with an ID number is definitely not expected.
>
> Could we perhaps address it by ensuring that we always return '-1'
> for ID if the state is "SHUTOFF", even if def->id has a positive
> value ?
But we should somehow make it clear that the domain is actually there,
somehow, only not completely usable. That is, one may need to actually
call virsh destroy on such domain to get rid of the leftover process if
something goes wrong.
Hmm, if something goes wrong due virDomainStart though, we should be
tearing down the QEMU process. IIRC we should even be kill -9'ing QEMU,
so even if QEMU is stuck in an uninterruptable sleep and won't exit,
once the (storage?) problem causing that sleep is resolved QEMU will
exit without further intervention. Similarly calling 'destroy' more
times won't make it any more likely to quit, once it has had a SIGKILL
Regards,
Daniel
--
|:
http://berrange.com -o-
http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|:
http://libvirt.org -o-
http://virt-manager.org :|
|:
http://autobuild.org -o-
http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|:
http://entangle-photo.org -o-
http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|