-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
engine-storage: Set SecretConsumerDetail for VM live migration with storage on shared NFS #9222
Conversation
…tion with storage on shared NFS
Codecov ReportAttention: Patch coverage is
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## 4.19 #9222 +/- ##
============================================
- Coverage 15.08% 15.08% -0.01%
+ Complexity 11190 11188 -2
============================================
Files 5406 5406
Lines 473210 473211 +1
Branches 61188 59224 -1964
============================================
Hits 71376 71376
- Misses 393887 393888 +1
Partials 7947 7947
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code lgtm
@abh1sar |
Removed a condition which was not allowing live migrate for powerflex as @harikrishna-patnala suggested on issue #8255 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
code LGTM. This needs testing with powerflex storage as well.
@blueorangutan package |
@abh1sar a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 9879 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM didn't test it though
@blueorangutan test |
@abh1sar a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (centos7 mgmt + kvm-centos7) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-10427)
|
...tion/src/main/java/org/apache/cloudstack/storage/motion/StorageSystemDataMotionStrategy.java
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
@blueorangutan package |
@abh1sar a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10133 |
@borisstoyanov I have merged with the latest changes and built packages. Can you please try once more. |
@blueorangutan package |
@abh1sar a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress. |
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10729 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM based on manual testing. Tested with Oracle Linux 8 KVM using the provided steps.
@borisstoyanov @sureshanaparti are your concerns met? |
@blueorangutan test |
@abh1sar a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGMT, based on code review, marvin tests
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-11150)
|
not yet, will confirm the powerflex check with the author. |
@vladimirpetrov this needs testing with powerflex as well. |
Description
Fixes #8255
This PR Fixes the issue where live migration of a VM with encrypted volume on shared NFS due to wrongly setup secret key on the destination.
Before fix uuid of the secret key was corresponding to the source volume, while actually it should be of the destination volume.
Types of changes
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
Bug Severity
Screenshots (if appropriate):
How Has This Been Tested?
Reproduced the original issue by
Migrate with Storage
option and made sure that the data volume is moved to a different pool.How did you try to break this feature and the system with this change?