Skip to content

Conversation

@anarnold97
Copy link
Collaborator

@anarnold97 anarnold97 commented Nov 4, 2025

JIRA

PREVIEW

image

@dgur
Copy link
Collaborator

dgur commented Nov 5, 2025

Important to add that because of this bug the user should only run Storage Offload Only ONE Disk at a time.
Running more at a time - risk this failure.

@anarnold97 anarnold97 requested review from dgur and mnecas November 6, 2025 11:57
@dgur
Copy link
Collaborator

dgur commented Nov 6, 2025

I Like the change,
Could you update the Prevuew and ask the MTV Devs to take a final look?

@TzahiAshkenazi
Copy link

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)]
Copy link
Member

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

Copy link
Collaborator Author

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

Copy link
Collaborator

@rgolangh rgolangh Nov 17, 2025

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.

@anarnold97
Copy link
Collaborator Author

@mnecas - I think Roy is ok with this, so are you ok with it

(merge conflict aside)

Thanks

@rgolangh
Copy link
Collaborator

rgolangh commented Dec 5, 2025

Heads up - the 2.10.1 release no longer has this issue.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants