-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 28
MTV-3676: Add note that there are performance issue for Storage Copy Offload #790
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
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
…Offload Signed-off-by: A.Arnold <[email protected]>
|
Important to add that because of this bug the user should only run Storage Offload Only ONE Disk at a time. |
|
I Like the change, |
|
Looks good from my side. Let’s wait for the dev review as well. Thanks! |
|
|
||
| **Impact:** | ||
|
|
||
| Because VMware's underlying disk utility, vmkfstools, enforces a strict limit of 2 active copy operations per ESXi host, exceeding this limit results in errors and plan failure. Consequently, customers attempting single-host storage-offload migrations for multiple VMs at once may experience parallel migration failures, negatively impacting overall migration stability and user experience. link:https://issues.redhat.com/browse/MTV-3630[(MTV-3630)] |
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.
This applies only specific storage when doing xcopy, when we do the the fallback we are capable of doing more migrations at once. @TzahiAshkenazi @rgolangh
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.
@TzahiAshkenazi & @rgolangh - please could i ask you to help with @mnecas 's comment
thanks
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.
Theoretically the fallback could be less limited, but we see more factors causing the failures we see, like rescans, and vib related commands. so we are unsure yet. that comment as it is is clear and correct for now.
|
@mnecas - I think Roy is ok with this, so are you ok with it (merge conflict aside) Thanks |
|
Heads up - the 2.10.1 release no longer has this issue. |
JIRA
PREVIEW