I installed XCP 1.5 Beta, and it partitioned by HD correctly but did not actually create a local SR. The creation of a local SR through the "xe" command is sufficiently complicated enough that I''m not confident about doing it - could someone post the list of steps (or a link to a document that outlines how) to create an SR using a local disk volume? Thanks, Nick -------- This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.
From: "Nick Couchman" <Nick.Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr.com> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:47:10 -0700 I installed XCP 1.5 Beta, and it partitioned by HD correctly but did not actually create a local SR. The creation of a local SR through the "xe" command is sufficiently complicated enough that I''m not confident about doing it - could someone post the list of steps (or a link to a document that outlines how) to create an SR using a local disk volume? Here''s what I puzzled out for XCP 1.1 by looking at the default sr''s params; I found the device id (for the whole disk) and used it in the sr-create command: cat /proc/partitions -> major minor #blocks name 8 0 1953514584 sda [...] ls -l /dev/disk/by-id -> total 0 [...] lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Aug 11 16:21 scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f -> ../../sda [...] xe sr-create name-label="Local storage slow 01" type=lvm content-type=user shared=false device-config:device=/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f The only significant difference in the sr params compared to the original automatically created on installation "Local storage" sr was this, which was in the default but not in the one I created: other-config (MRW): i18n-original-value-name_label: Local storage; i18n-key: local-storage - Harold
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 18:24 -0600, hga@ancell-ent.com wrote:> From: "Nick Couchman" <Nick.Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr.com> > Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:47:10 -0700 > > I installed XCP 1.5 Beta, and it partitioned by HD > correctly but did not actually create a local SR. The > creation of a local SR through the "xe" command is > sufficiently complicated enough that I''m not confident > about doing it - could someone post the list of steps (or > a link to a document that outlines how) to create an SR > using a local disk volume? > > Here''s what I puzzled out for XCP 1.1 by looking at the > default sr''s params; I found the device id (for the whole > disk) and used it in the sr-create command: > > cat /proc/partitions -> > > major minor #blocks name > > 8 0 1953514584 sda > [...] > > ls -l /dev/disk/by-id -> > > total 0 > [...] > lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Aug 11 16:21 scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f -> ../../sda > [...] > > xe sr-create name-label="Local storage slow 01" type=lvm content-type=user shared=false device-config:device=/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f > > The only significant difference in the sr params compared to > the original automatically created on installation "Local > storage" sr was this, which was in the default but not in the > one I created: > > other-config (MRW): i18n-original-value-name_label: Local storage; i18n-key: local-storage > > - HaroldThanks, Harold, Interestingly in the XCP 1.5 beta release I do not see /dev/disk/by-id, so I wasn''t able to use that. Instead, I came up with the following command: xe sr-create content-type=user device-config:device=/dev/sda3 host-uuid=47f5967d-76c9-4e66-b6e6-543afcf1c19e name-label="Local storage" shared=false type=lvm This should have been done at install time by the installer, so not sure if this is a bug or just a glitch during the install I was doing? -Nick -------- This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.
From: "Nick Couchman"
<Nick.Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 10:05:38 -0700
On Tue, 2012-02-21 at 18:24 -0600, hga@ancell-ent.com wrote:
> From: "Nick Couchman"
<Nick.Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr">Couchman@seakr.com>
> Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2012 16:47:10 -0700
>
> I installed XCP 1.5 Beta, and it partitioned by HD
> correctly but did not actually create a local SR. The
> creation of a local SR through the "xe" command is
> sufficiently complicated enough that I''m not confident
> about doing it - could someone post the list of steps (or
> a link to a document that outlines how) to create an SR
> using a local disk volume?
> Here''s what I puzzled out for XCP 1.1 by looking at the
> default sr''s params; I found the device id (for the
> whole disk) and used it in the sr-create command:
> cat /proc/partitions ->
>
> major minor #blocks name
>
> 8 0 1953514584 sda
> [...]
>
> ls -l /dev/disk/by-id ->
>
> total 0
> [...]
> lrwxrwxrwx 1 root root 9 Aug 11 16:21 scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f ->
../../sda
> [...]
>
> xe sr-create name-label="Local storage slow 01" type=lvm
content-type=user shared=false
device-config:device=/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f
> The only significant difference in the sr params
> compared to the original automatically created on
> installation "Local storage" sr was this, which was in
> the default but not in the one I created:
> other-config (MRW): i18n-original-value-name_label: Local storage;
i18n-key: local-storage
Thanks, Harold,
You''re welcome.
Interestingly in the XCP 1.5 beta release I do not see
/dev/disk/by-id, so I wasn''t able to use that. Instead, I
came up with the following command:
xe sr-create content-type=user device-config:device=/dev/sda3
host-uuid=47f5967d-76c9-4e66-b6e6-543afcf1c19e name-label="Local
storage" shared=false type=lvm
I have a concern that that''s fragile; add or subtract a USB
stick or another disk or whatever and what is /dev/sda
*might* change. The device is used to create a pbd; here''s
the relevant output from my machine:
xe pbd-list">pbd-list ->
uuid ( RO) : a844364c-fc70-f4ce-4ca1-785224cf7dc4
host-uuid ( RO): 75de5d76-0011-4296-85b1-100567147c46
sr-uuid ( RO): e77ffc8a-ed78-c9b0-7ed4-702308cce130
device-config (MRO): device:
/dev/disk/by-id/scsi-3600508e0000000006069ef5986d41402-part3
currently-attached ( RO): true
[...]
uuid ( RO) : da707dd6-d1cf-a460-cc76-6ca55f413813
host-uuid ( RO): 75de5d76-0011-4296-85b1-100567147c46
sr-uuid ( RO): 2415abc5-7d90-10e5-49db-39cc21c4eba0
device-config (MRO): device: /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f
currently-attached ( RO): true
In the first one, the 3rd partition is used and I gather XCP
1.5 has the same layout with Dom0 in partition 1, partition
2 is of identical length (used for a backup command?) and
the third, comprising the rest of the disk, was left for
the Local storage sr. Perhaps someone who''s installed 1.5
could provide us with a listing from the relevant pdb so
that we can see how it''s done in this version?
In the second I just gave it the whole disk. In reflection, I''m
not sure that was a good idea (vs. a partition using the
whole disk), it violates the normal usage; can''t remember
why I did it.
This should have been done at install time by the
installer, so not sure if this is a bug or just a glitch
during the install I was doing?
I would think the former; that''s how 1.1 works (and as I
recall it didn''t give you an option *not* to create a local
repository, although strictly speaking in a proper XCP cloud
your VMs'' storage is going to be separate so that you can
easily migrate them and so forth). You might want to try a
raw installation again to see if if you''ve found a bug or if
1.5 just allows an option not to create a local sr.
- Harold
> xe sr-create content-type=user device-config:device=/dev/sda3 host-uuid=47f5967d-76c9-4e66-b6e6-543afcf1c19e name-label="Local storage" shared=false type=lvm > > I have a concern that that''s fragile; add or subtract a USB > stick or another disk or whatever and what is /dev/sda > *might* change. The device is used to create a pbd; here''s > the relevant output from my machine:Oh, yes, depending on how XCP picks up the disks when you reboot the system, this could be very fragile. Theoretically, if you''re using LVM (NOT Thin Provisioning), it should *scan* the disk devices and find the LVM one located wherever that disk happened to get attached. However, this would mis-match what the XE Toolstack thinks the disk should be, so how does the system recover from that??> > xe pbd-list">pbd-list -> > > uuid ( RO) : a844364c-fc70-f4ce-4ca1-785224cf7dc4 > host-uuid ( RO): 75de5d76-0011-4296-85b1-100567147c46 > sr-uuid ( RO): e77ffc8a-ed78-c9b0-7ed4-702308cce130 > device-config (MRO): device: /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-3600508e0000000006069ef5986d41402-part3 > currently-attached ( RO): true > > [...] > > uuid ( RO) : da707dd6-d1cf-a460-cc76-6ca55f413813 > host-uuid ( RO): 75de5d76-0011-4296-85b1-100567147c46 > sr-uuid ( RO): 2415abc5-7d90-10e5-49db-39cc21c4eba0 > device-config (MRO): device: /dev/disk/by-id/scsi-35000c50033e2ff7f > currently-attached ( RO): true > > In the first one, the 3rd partition is used and I gather XCP > 1.5 has the same layout with Dom0 in partition 1, partition > 2 is of identical length (used for a backup command?) and > the third, comprising the rest of the disk, was left for > the Local storage sr. Perhaps someone who''s installed 1.5 > could provide us with a listing from the relevant pdb so > that we can see how it''s done in this version? > > In the second I just gave it the whole disk. In reflection, I''m > not sure that was a good idea (vs. a partition using the > whole disk), it violates the normal usage; can''t remember > why I did it. > > This should have been done at install time by the > installer, so not sure if this is a bug or just a glitch > during the install I was doing? > > I would think the former; that''s how 1.1 works (and as I > recall it didn''t give you an option *not* to create a local > repository, although strictly speaking in a proper XCP cloud > your VMs'' storage is going to be separate so that you can > easily migrate them and so forth). You might want to try a > raw installation again to see if if you''ve found a bug or if > 1.5 just allows an option not to create a local sr.You actually can uncheck the box to create the SR on the local disk, but I''m pretty sure I did not do this. I did install XCP on a few nodes to SDHC cards, and I did not want any local repository being created, so I was able to untick the box and go through the install without the local repo. -Nick -------- This e-mail may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole use of the intended recipient. If this email is not intended for you, or you are not responsible for the delivery of this message to the intended recipient, please note that this message may contain SEAKR Engineering (SEAKR) Privileged/Proprietary Information. In such a case, you are strictly prohibited from downloading, photocopying, distributing or otherwise using this message, its contents or attachments in any way. If you have received this message in error, please notify us immediately by replying to this e-mail and delete the message from your mailbox. Information contained in this message that does not relate to the business of SEAKR is neither endorsed by nor attributable to SEAKR.