Managing virtual machines without RHEV-M

Latest response


let's suppose that RHEV Manager goes down because some failure. It should be some feature to manage virtual machines on hypervisors, like it is on VMware. If vCenter server goes down, I can run vm's basic tasks on hosts.

It could be a problem, when RHEV-M is not running on cluster ie. RHCS or some other clustered virtual environment.

So, in my opinion in future releases of RHEV development team should implement some features to manage virtual machines directly on hypervisors, whatever it is thin RHEV-H or full RHEL.

What is your point of view on this?




Hi Jakub,


Starting and stopping a VM is more than just telling it to run - it means the host has to lock the VM's images on the storage so that nobody else can touch them, and make sure the VM is not running on any other node. Then it needs to gain access to the images (first - find out which image belongs to the right VM, and make sure you're getting the latest snapshot in a chain).


So, in short, I'm just meaning to say, that when dealing with a cluster, it's not a trivial task to do anything within that cluster, and this is where RHEV-M comes into play - it contains all the advanced logic that allows to do so much, in a complex system that spans multiple hosts, storage domains and other entities RHEV-M manages. Had this been decentralised... well, it would be a mess. This is one of the reasons RHEV allows for such large clusters, while everyone else is a long way behind



I wonder do you have plans to make it so that you can have two RHEV-M to manage the same domain fail over or both active?



This is already possible using RHCS, you can cluster the RHEV-M service itself as well as cluster a KVM(libvirt managed) VM in which RHEV-M is running.

The latter is much easier because you don't need to cluster the database separately.