3:15 a.m.
---
tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 2 ++
tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
index f247e5e..b462ea8 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default
ON_BOOT=start
ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend
SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0
+BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests &&
. "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests
@@ -166,6 +167,7 @@ start() {
gettext "already active"; echo
else
retval run_virsh "$uri" start "$name"
>/dev/null && \
+ sleep $BOOT_TIMEOUT && \
gettext "done"; echo
fi
fi
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
index cd58728..e970a00 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
# libvirtd
#ON_BOOT=start
+# number of seconds to wait before starting the next guest
+#BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
+
# action taken on host shutdown
# - suspend all running guests are suspended using virsh managedsave
# - shutdown all running guests are asked to shutdown. Please be careful with
--
1.7.1
3:16 a.m.
Sorry for top posing.
This is https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=695653. Was filed first in
Bugzilla because the mailing list wasn't accessible yesterday.
На 13.04.2011 11:15, Alexander Todorov написа:
---
tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 2 ++
tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
index f247e5e..b462ea8 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default
ON_BOOT=start
ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend
SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0
+BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests&&
. "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests
@@ -166,6 +167,7 @@ start() {
gettext "already active"; echo
else
retval run_virsh "$uri" start
"$name">/dev/null&& \
+ sleep $BOOT_TIMEOUT&& \
gettext "done"; echo
fi
fi
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
index cd58728..e970a00 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
# libvirtd
#ON_BOOT=start
+# number of seconds to wait before starting the next guest
+#BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
+
# action taken on host shutdown
# - suspend all running guests are suspended using virsh managedsave
# - shutdown all running guests are asked to shutdown. Please be careful with
--
инж. Александър Тодоров - RHCE, RHCVA, RHCI
Отворени Технологии България ЕООД - Red Hat Ready Business Partner
www.otb.bg/sumu
12:31 p.m.
On 04/13/2011 02:15 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
---
tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 2 ++
tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
index f247e5e..b462ea8 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default
ON_BOOT=start
ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend
SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0
+BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests &&
. "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests
@@ -166,6 +167,7 @@ start() {
gettext "already active"; echo
else
retval run_virsh "$uri" start "$name"
>/dev/null && \
+ sleep $BOOT_TIMEOUT && \
I think the idea of a configurable sleep between guests (so that they
are staged rather than run back-to-back as fast as virsh can respond)
makes sense, but don't like the name BOOT_TIMEOUT. It's not a timeout,
so much as a delay. And it's not tied to BOOT (which is what the init
script does when the host boots) so much as guest starts. Does the name
START_DELAY work any better?
gettext "done"; echo
As written, if you have n guests, you also have n sleeps. But after the
last guest, that's wasted dead time. It seems like the better usage
pattern would be to sleep _before_ starting a guest, and to write the
code where the first guest started skips that sleep (n guests, n-1 sleeps).
fi
fi
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
index cd58728..e970a00 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
# libvirtd
#ON_BOOT=start
+# number of seconds to wait before starting the next guest
And this would read better as "number of seconds to wait between each
guest start"
+#BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
+
# action taken on host shutdown
# - suspend all running guests are suspended using virsh managedsave
# - shutdown all running guests are asked to shutdown. Please be careful with
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
5:21 a.m.
На 13.04.2011 20:31, Eric Blake написа:
On 04/13/2011 02:15 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> ---
> tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 2 ++
> tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
> index f247e5e..b462ea8 100644
> --- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
> +++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
> @@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default
> ON_BOOT=start
> ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend
> SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0
> +BOOT_TIMEOUT=0
>
> test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests&&
> . "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests
> @@ -166,6 +167,7 @@ start() {
> gettext "already active"; echo
> else
> retval run_virsh "$uri" start
"$name">/dev/null&& \
> + sleep $BOOT_TIMEOUT&& \
I think the idea of a configurable sleep between guests (so that they
are staged rather than run back-to-back as fast as virsh can respond)
makes sense, but don't like the name BOOT_TIMEOUT. It's not a timeout,
so much as a delay. And it's not tied to BOOT (which is what the init
script does when the host boots) so much as guest starts. Does the name
START_DELAY work any better?
I have no preference on the name.
> gettext "done"; echo
As written, if you have n guests, you also have n sleeps. But after the
last guest, that's wasted dead time. It seems like the better usage
pattern would be to sleep _before_ starting a guest, and to write the
code where the first guest started skips that sleep (n guests, n-1 sleeps).
Right, that makes sense. It was a quick patch to resolve my particular issue
where starting 10 guests at once puts big load on my system.
I will rework the patch with your comments and post it again but was wondering
about something more advanced.
Is it possible to specify the order(and timeouts) in which individual guests are
started? As it seems currently this is not possible.
I've come across a situation where one of the guests needs to start first
(provides a database) and then another guests needs to start second (an app
server). The reason is that this is a proprietary app which is badly written and
fails to connect/re-connect to the database if it is not online in the first place.
Regards,
Alexander.
3:32 p.m.
On 04/14/2011 04:21 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
I will rework the patch with your comments and post it again but was
wondering about something more advanced.
Is it possible to specify the order(and timeouts) in which individual
guests are started? As it seems currently this is not possible.
I'm not sure of any way to do this short of naming your guests so that
their names are sorted in the order you want them started.
Hmm, thinking back to an earlier proposal, this might be a good fit for
the idea of VM groups:
https://www.redhat.com/archives/libvir-list/2011-March/msg01546.html
That is, if you can teach libvirt to manage the notion of groups of
related VMs, then you can also express ordering contraints within each
group.
I've come across a situation where one of the guests needs to
start
first (provides a database) and then another guests needs to start
second (an app server). The reason is that this is a proprietary app
which is badly written and fails to connect/re-connect to the database
if it is not online in the first place.
Without more code on the libvirt front, I think you're stuck renaming
the guests to enforce naming order (assuming that libvirt even goes by
sorted name order, as opposed to readdir() order where you have no control).
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
3:52 p.m.
On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 02:32:36PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote:
Without more code on the libvirt front, I think you're stuck
renaming
the guests to enforce naming order (assuming that libvirt even goes by
sorted name order, as opposed to readdir() order where you have no control).
I solved this problem in my own application, a layer above libvirt. I
simply make all of my domains non-persistent. When the node reboots,
nothing starts up. My application detects that domains that should be
running aren't and defines/starts them. It's easy at that point to start
them up in whatever order I want and give whatever delay between
startups.
Even if you don't have some overarching managing application (like, if
you're managing one node instead of hundreds), you could easily do
something similar with a cron job.
--Igor
6:18 p.m.
On 04/14/2011 04:32 PM, Eric Blake wrote:
On 04/14/2011 04:21 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
> I've come across a situation where one of the guests needs to start
> first (provides a database) and then another guests needs to start
> second (an app server). The reason is that this is a proprietary app
> which is badly written and fails to connect/re-connect to the database
> if it is not online in the first place.
Without more code on the libvirt front, I think you're stuck renaming
the guests to enforce naming order (assuming that libvirt even goes by
sorted name order, as opposed to readdir() order where you have no control).
Of course that does no good if guest A which happens to startup on Host
1 has a prerequisite of guest B which may already be running on Host 2,
or may not be running at all.
So should libvirt try to solve the problem for the special case of all
guests on one host, or defer it to higher level management, which may
know about more than one host? Maybe libvirt could just make space for
the information about dependencies in the domain XML, but not do
anything to try and enforce it (or maybe that could be something
optionally enabled in system config for installations with a single host).
3:57 a.m.
Hello folks,
here's a second try at this wrt to Eric's comments.
BOOT_TIMEOUT changed to START_DELAY, updated wording in the conf file to better
reflect what this does and added a flag to skip sleeping for the first ever
started guest.
---
tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 7 +++++++
tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
index f247e5e..30f957a 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh
@@ -42,6 +42,7 @@ URIS=default
ON_BOOT=start
ON_SHUTDOWN=suspend
SHUTDOWN_TIMEOUT=0
+START_DELAY=0
test -f "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests &&
. "$sysconfdir"/sysconfig/libvirt-guests
@@ -141,6 +142,7 @@ start() {
return 0
fi
+ isfirst=true
while read uri list; do
configured=false
set -f
@@ -165,6 +167,11 @@ start() {
if "$guest_running"; then
gettext "already active"; echo
else
+ if "$isfirst"; then
+ isfirst=false
+ else
+ sleep $START_DELAY
+ fi
retval run_virsh "$uri" start "$name"
>/dev/null && \
gettext "done"; echo
fi
diff --git a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
index cd58728..37b258e 100644
--- a/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
+++ b/tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf
@@ -10,6 +10,9 @@
# libvirtd
#ON_BOOT=start
+# number of seconds to wait between each guest start
+#START_DELAY=0
+
# action taken on host shutdown
# - suspend all running guests are suspended using virsh managedsave
# - shutdown all running guests are asked to shutdown. Please be careful with
12:16 p.m.
On 04/15/2011 02:57 AM, Alexander Todorov wrote:
Hello folks,
here's a second try at this wrt to Eric's comments.
BOOT_TIMEOUT changed to START_DELAY, updated wording in the conf file to
better reflect what this does and added a flag to skip sleeping for the
first ever started guest.
---
tools/libvirt-guests.init.sh | 7 +++++++
tools/libvirt-guests.sysconf | 3 +++
2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
Your mailer botched the patch (it used 2 instead of 1 leading space for
each context line), and 'git apply' had a hard time applying it; I had
to redo it by hand.
ACK and pushed. Thanks for the contribution! I added you to AUTHORS;
feel free to let me know (off-list if desired) if I need to adjust your
listing.
--
Eric Blake eblake(a)redhat.com +1-801-349-2682
Libvirt virtualization library http://libvirt.org
4970
days inactive
4972
days old
8 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Alexander Todorov -
Eric Blake -
Igor Serebryany -
Laine Stump