Question: Has anyone used Storage 'Port Groups' (as in storage side port groups attached to the Storage Template) in production - I'm trying to see if:

the cinder volume driver records the last port group used, such that a new provisioning request uses NEXT port in the list, or does it revert back to the first member in the port group list:

        "drivers:target_port_groups": "PG01,PG02,PG03,PG04",

        "drivers:port_group:PG01": "50050768021357bc,50050768024357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG02": "50050768024357bc,50050768023357bc",

        "drivers:port_group:PG03": "50050768021357bd,50050768023357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG04": "50050768022357bd,50050768022357bc"

single instance created, starts at PG01

? next instance created, uses PG02

? next instance    PG03

? next instance    PG04

and then back to PG01 ?

The notes do say that if a number of instances are created (i.e. as a single provisioning request)

that it will iterate through the port group list for each instance, I'm trying to see if anyone has tracked single instance provision and Port Group usage such that we can be assured we always spread across the Port group list

Hi Dominic,

When storage template has port group configured, it picks the PG based on round robin policy. So first it will pick PG1, PG2, PG3, PG4 and then PG1 again. This is applicable for each VM provisioned using the volumes coming from the defined storage template.

Thanks & Regards,

Chhavi Agarwal

Question: Has anyone used Storage 'Port Groups' (as in storage side port groups attached to the Storage Template) in production - I'm trying to see if:

the cinder volume driver records the last port group used, such that a new provisioning request uses NEXT port in the list, or does it revert back to the first member in the port group list:

        "drivers:target_port_groups": "PG01,PG02,PG03,PG04",

        "drivers:port_group:PG01": "50050768021357bc,50050768024357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG02": "50050768024357bc,50050768023357bc",

        "drivers:port_group:PG03": "50050768021357bd,50050768023357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG04": "50050768022357bd,50050768022357bc"

single instance created, starts at PG01

? next instance created, uses PG02

? next instance    PG03

? next instance    PG04

and then back to PG01 ?

The notes do say that if a number of instances are created (i.e. as a single provisioning request)

that it will iterate through the port group list for each instance, I'm trying to see if anyone has tracked single instance provision and Port Group usage such that we can be assured we always spread across the Port group list

Chhavi, Many thanks for confirming the round robin works this way for all provisioning 

Dom:L

Hi Dominic,

When storage template has port group configured, it picks the PG based on round robin policy. So first it will pick PG1, PG2, PG3, PG4 and then PG1 again. This is applicable for each VM provisioned using the volumes coming from the defined storage template.

Thanks & Regards,

Chhavi Agarwal

Question: Has anyone used Storage 'Port Groups' (as in storage side port groups attached to the Storage Template) in production - I'm trying to see if:

the cinder volume driver records the last port group used, such that a new provisioning request uses NEXT port in the list, or does it revert back to the first member in the port group list:

        "drivers:target_port_groups": "PG01,PG02,PG03,PG04",

        "drivers:port_group:PG01": "50050768021357bc,50050768024357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG02": "50050768024357bc,50050768023357bc",

        "drivers:port_group:PG03": "50050768021357bd,50050768023357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG04": "50050768022357bd,50050768022357bc"

single instance created, starts at PG01

? next instance created, uses PG02

? next instance    PG03

? next instance    PG04

and then back to PG01 ?

The notes do say that if a number of instances are created (i.e. as a single provisioning request)

that it will iterate through the port group list for each instance, I'm trying to see if anyone has tracked single instance provision and Port Group usage such that we can be assured we always spread across the Port group list

It also says so in the documentary: 

That is, when the first virtual machine is deployed, it is connected to one or more ports from the first port group (depending on the value of the powervc-command zone-one-target property). When the second virtual machine is deployed, it uses the second port group, and so on.

https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/powervc/2.1.0?topic=templates-configuring-storage-port-groups

Chhavi, Many thanks for confirming the round robin works this way for all provisioning 

Dom:L

Hi Dominic,

When storage template has port group configured, it picks the PG based on round robin policy. So first it will pick PG1, PG2, PG3, PG4 and then PG1 again. This is applicable for each VM provisioned using the volumes coming from the defined storage template.

Thanks & Regards,

Chhavi Agarwal

Question: Has anyone used Storage 'Port Groups' (as in storage side port groups attached to the Storage Template) in production - I'm trying to see if:

the cinder volume driver records the last port group used, such that a new provisioning request uses NEXT port in the list, or does it revert back to the first member in the port group list:

        "drivers:target_port_groups": "PG01,PG02,PG03,PG04",

        "drivers:port_group:PG01": "50050768021357bc,50050768024357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG02": "50050768024357bc,50050768023357bc",

        "drivers:port_group:PG03": "50050768021357bd,50050768023357bd",

        "drivers:port_group:PG04": "50050768022357bd,50050768022357bc"

single instance created, starts at PG01

? next instance created, uses PG02

? next instance    PG03

? next instance    PG04

and then back to PG01 ?

The notes do say that if a number of instances are created (i.e. as a single provisioning request)

that it will iterate through the port group list for each instance, I'm trying to see if anyone has tracked single instance provision and Port Group usage such that we can be assured we always spread across the Port group list