From owner-freebsd-virtualization@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Sep 18 15:56:43 2013 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [8.8.178.115]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26CF9941 for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:56:43 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kpielorz_lst@tdx.co.uk) Received: from mail.tdx.com (mail.tdx.com [62.13.128.18]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0BBD239E for ; Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:56:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk (storm.tdx.co.uk [62.13.130.251]) (authenticated bits=0) by mail.tdx.com (8.14.3/8.14.3/) with ESMTP id r8IFufBs076374 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:56:41 +0100 (BST) Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 16:56:44 +0100 From: Karl Pielorz To: "Abhishek Gupta (LIS)" , freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org Subject: RE: Hyper-V 2012 Cluster / Failover - supported? - Any known issues? Message-ID: <61A92208F36F7F74F8D856F1@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> In-Reply-To: <9cabc6fbba754dd3aa357943ef82db22@BL2PR03MB210.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> References: <18D121A056145C32F0501114@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <155969fa70a34e41a84649bf3cb81c21@BL2PR03MB210.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> ,<4787C47D82401721B4C53B49@Mail-PC.tdx.co.uk> <9cabc6fbba754dd3aa357943ef82db22@BL2PR03MB210.namprd03.prod.outlook.com> X-Mailer: Mulberry/4.0.8 (Win32) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline X-BeenThere: freebsd-virtualization@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Discussion of various virtualization techniques FreeBSD supports." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:56:43 -0000 --On 18 September 2013 14:50 +0000 "Abhishek Gupta (LIS)" wrote: > Thanks again Karl! Yes, it should work. My understanding is that the > failover should be agnostic to the guest OS but there could be some > integration component that we might have missed. So it would be good to > get to the bottom of this. Ok, I've repeated the test twice now - and it's succeeded both times, so it looks likely the Synology patch did 'something' that had a knock on effect for this. fwiw/incase anyone else hit this - our test setup comprises of a pair of D412+ NAS's (active/passive) and they're now running DSM v4.3-3776-1 (which was apparently released in the last few days) - so far (fingers crossed) this appears to be working for us now. I'll be re-testing it probably multiple times over the next few days - if I hit any other issues - I'll let you know, and thanks again, Regards, -Karl