RHEVM : Template name not being transfered to VM detail upon creation
Hi
May have hit a posible bug. Just wanted to run it by you chaps first before I raise a ticket.
It may well be related to the editing template issue I have.
This has been tested on both the admin portal via IE and webadmin via Firefox.
RHEVM v3.0.5_0001
RHEVH v20120510
Issue : VM "Move" function failing. Reports error:- "The Template that the VM is based on does not exist on active storage domain". The template from which the VM was created IS in the active storage domain.
Expected result: The template name from which a VM is created is recorded and displayed in the VM details panel.
Real result : The template name displayed in the VM details panel states "Blank" and not the name of the template from which it was created.
Summary :- When creating a new server VM from an existing template, the template name is not being recorded in the new VM's details. This itself does not pose a particular problem except when coming to move the VM between storage domains using the "Move" function as it requires the the template from which it was created to be in place in order for the migration/move to be initiated. If the template "Blank" does not exist the move function fails.
Thanks
Responses
Red Hat
Guru
4679 points
The expected result should be as below.
- If the vm is deployed as thin provisioned from the template, then the template should be copied to the target sd before moving the vm.
- If the vm is deployed as clone from template, then it should not be required for the template to be copied to the target sd before moving the vm.
If it happens with the latter, you might need a support case.
Guru
2356 points
Hi Sadique
Our VM's are full-fat, not thin provisioned and are "Server" type as opposed to "Desktop".
Are you saying that there is an ongoing relationship between a VM and the template from which it originated ? (regardless of provisioning type)
Does this then restrict the removal/deletion of a template from which a VM originated ? What functions would we lose for the VM if we were to do so ?
We still have the issue that the template name is not being recorded in the VM details either so I'll open a support case.
If you create a VM from template using the "Clone" option, the VM should not be coupled with the Template (in fact it will show up as based on the Blank template)
Red Hat
Guru
4679 points
Are you saying that there is an ongoing relationship between a VM and the template from which it originated ? (regardless of provisioning type)
No, relationship between template and vm is only for thin provisioned vms.
> Does this then restrict the removal/deletion of a template from which a VM originated ?
If thin provisioned, yes. If fully allocated, no.
> We still have the issue that the template name is not being recorded in the VM details either so I'll open a support case.
It will be recorded only if vm is thin provisioned.
As I said before, I just tested and confirmed it in my test bed, if the vm is deployed from template via "Clone", and it's moved from one storage domain to another one, then the presence of original template is not required in the target sd. If your vm is deployed via Clone from template and you cannot move the vm to another storage domain without first copying the template, please open a support case.
Guru
2356 points
Thanks for the clarification chaps.
I shall test again and get back to you with my findings.
Thanks again for your ongoing support and help.
Guru
2356 points
- If the vm is deployed as thin provisioned from the template, then the template should be copied to the target sd before moving the vm.
** Correct result
- If the vm is deployed as clone from template, then it should not be required for the template to be copied to the target sd before moving the vm.
** Correct result
If it happens with the latter, you might need a support case.
** No need
I was expecting the VM details to show the name of the template it was created from ,regardless of the type of provisioned storage.
This lead me to believe that the move was not occuring because it was missing the template.
Since we don't intend to deploy thin provisioned servers the fact that the template needs to be on the target storage domain is redundant.
Thanks