Hi, Boris, Devs. I use local-storage-only hosts, KVM hypervisor, no shared storage at all. All local hosts are marked as PERMIT (storage tag) and PERMIT, HIGHCPU (host tag). I deployed SO with PERMIT, HIGHCPU (host tags) and PERMIT (storage tags). All logs I have at current runlevel are listed in the thread. I will not have a chance to set log level to Debug until the 18 June due to vacations.
BTW, my cluster heads were upgraded from 4.10, but compute nodes are created from scratch. I might stumble upon some artifacts because it's not a clear deployment. 2018-05-31 14:42 GMT+07:00 Boris Stoyanov <boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com>: > Hi Ivan, > > I’m using a SO with the UD Planner and I have no tags on my hosts, I was > able to deploy VMs on both KVM and VMware hosts. > Could this be an issue with your env? Can you send logs we could look at? > > Regards, > Boris Stoyanov. > > > boris.stoya...@shapeblue.com > www.shapeblue.com > 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > @shapeblue > > > > > On 30 May 2018, at 14:00, Ivan Kudryavtsev <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > wrote: > > > > Hello, Dag, no, I have a single enabled cluster with enabled hosts, where > > vms are deployed just fine from service offerings without host tags and > > without UserDispersingPlanner, but with storage tags (since I have local > > storage). But if I use a service offering with host tags which match host > > tags exactly, literally and (or) UserDispersingPlanner is set, then > things > > stop work. > > > > During problem discovery I removed tags and left only > > UserDispersingPlanner, vms won't deploy as well. I removed planner and > left > > tags, vms won't deploy as well. Only when no host tags and no > > UserDispersingPlanner they deploy. > > > > 2018-05-30 17:54 GMT+07:00 Dag Sonstebo <dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com>: > > > >> Hi Ivan, > >> > >> OK – understand – if those are the tags used then IMO it should work, > and > >> yes agree, userdisperseplanning should’t kick in with 0 VMs. > >> > >> Could the issue be with tagging rather than userdispersing: > >>>> (logid:5ee25964) The clusterId list for the given offering tag: [] > >> > >> This looks like it can’t find any clusters with given tag (even though > you > >> have them set) > >> > >>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,486 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>> (logid:5ee25964) No clusters found after removing disabled > >> clusters and clusters in avoid list, returning. > >> > >> I appreciate I’m asking the obvious here so forgive me – but you’ve > >> definitely not got disabled clusters (“after removing disabled > clusters”)? > >> > >> Regards, > >> Dag Sonstebo > >> Cloud Architect > >> ShapeBlue > >> > >> On 30/05/2018, 11:43, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, Dag. Thank you very much, I really know that > >> > >> What I have in my cloud: > >> > >> Two local storage KVM hosts: > >> Host tags: PERMIT,HIGHCPU > >> Storage tags: PERMIT > >> > >> I have service offering with tags: > >> Host tags: PERMIT,HIGHCPU > >> Storage tags: PERMIT > >> > >> I don't have hosts without that labels at all, but, VM doesn't deploy > >> even > >> if no anti-affinity is set, so no constraints should be breached. > >> Also, I > >> don't catch how UserDispersingPlanner may interfere, if I have 0 VMs > >> deployed. > >> > >> It worked just fine in previous releases (at least 4.10, 4.9.3, 4.3). > >> But > >> now, in 4.11.1 RC it doesn't. > >> > >> > >> 2018-05-30 17:36 GMT+07:00 Dag Sonstebo <dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com > >: > >> > >>> Hi Ivan, > >>> > >>> Host tags are an absolute requirement – so if host tag matching can > >> not be > >>> met due to affinity or planner then the VMs won’t start. > >>> > >>> Regards, > >>> Dag Sonstebo > >>> Cloud Architect > >>> ShapeBlue > >>> > >>> On 30/05/2018, 11:33, "Ivan Kudryavtsev" <kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com> > >> wrote: > >>> > >>> Sorry for spamming your e-mails, I finally have got the exact > >> behavior: > >>> > >>> If > >>> VM host tags set AND (OR) VM UerDispersingPlanner set > >>> then not able to deploy vm > >>> > >>> Anti-affinity works fine (if first two are not set). > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> 2018-05-30 17:18 GMT+07:00 Ivan Kudryavtsev < > >> kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com > >>>> : > >>> > >>>> To be more precise, I see that error only under "admin" user. > >> Users > >>> from > >>>> domains can create VMS with anti-affinity groups fine. > >>>> > >>>> 2018-05-30 16:38 GMT+07:00 Ivan Kudryavtsev < > >>> kudryavtsev...@bw-sw.com>: > >>>> > >>>>> Hello, Devs. I have a fresh 4.11.1 RC with two KVM hosts > >> deployed. > >>>>> > >>>>> First, I unable to deploy instances with UserDispersingPlanner > >>> planner. > >>>>> The errors look like: > >>>>> > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,372 DEBUG [c.c.a.ApiServlet] > >>>>> (qtp1856056345-27:ctx-3fb8db1f ctx-d8415fd2) (logid:dbe8f2ce) > >>> ===END=== > >>>>> 91.221.61.126 -- GET command=deployVirtualMachine&r > >>>>> esponse=json&zoneid=d477bb3f-3592-4503-8f2a-da3d878dd476&tem > >>>>> plateid=369815dc-0622-4645-8ca4-c6432baebe89&hypervisor=KVM& > >>>>> serviceofferingid=eab6a6fa-ae7d-4e39-9ddf-32285cdfd20b& > >>>>> affinitygroupids=c2ca0ddf-9e87-4d7c-9e91-3f6eb56f30f4& > >>>>> securitygroupids=c1ec899c-c69b-11e7-bdcf-0242ac110004& > >>>>> displayname=aaa4&name=aaa4&_=1527672695121 > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,456 DEBUG [c.c.d. > >> DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) DeploymentPlanner allocation algorithm: null > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,456 DEBUG [c.c.d. > >> DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Trying to allocate a host and storage pools > >> from > >>> dc:1, > >>>>> pod:null,cluster:null, requested cpu: 9000, requested ram: > >>> 12884901888 > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,456 DEBUG [c.c.d. > >> DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Is ROOT volume READY (pool already > >> allocated)?: No > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,460 DEBUG [o.a.c.a. > >> HostAntiAffinityProcessor] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Processing affinity group test for VM Id: > >> 2149 > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,473 DEBUG [c.c.d. > >> DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Deploy avoids pods: [], clusters: [], hosts: > >> [] > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,474 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Searching all possible resources under this > >> Zone: 1 > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,476 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Listing clusters in order of aggregate > >> capacity, > >>> that have > >>>>> (atleast one host with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this > >>> Zone: 1 > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,479 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Removing from the clusterId list these > >> clusters > >>> from avoid > >>>>> set: [] > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,486 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) The clusterId list for the given offering > >> tag: [] > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,486 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) No clusters found after removing disabled > >> clusters > >>> and > >>>>> clusters in avoid list, returning. > >>>>> 2018-05-30 16:31:35,490 DEBUG [c.c.v.UserVmManagerImpl] > >>>>> (API-Job-Executor-10:ctx-b36a77ea job-156334 ctx-9c358aab) > >>>>> (logid:5ee25964) Destroying vm VM[User|i-2-2149-VM] as it > >> failed to > >>> create > >>>>> on Host with Id:null > >>>>> > >>>>> It's not in the "deployment.planners.exclude" btw. > >>>>> > >>>>> I removed from offerings that attribute: > >>>>> update service_offering_view set deployment_planner = null; > >>>>> > >>>>> and they can be deployed right now. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> Second, VMs with anti-affinity also won't deploy: > >>>>> > >>>>> The message is exactly the same by meaning. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > >>>>> Bitworks Software, Ltd. > >>>>> Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > >>>>> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> -- > >>>> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > >>>> Bitworks Software, Ltd. > >>>> Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > >>>> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > >>> Bitworks Software, Ltd. > >>> Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > >>> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com > >>> www.shapeblue.com > >>> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > >>> @shapeblue > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > >> Bitworks Software, Ltd. > >> Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > >> WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > >> > >> > >> > >> dag.sonst...@shapeblue.com > >> www.shapeblue.com > >> 53 Chandos Place, Covent Garden, London WC2N 4HSUK > >> @shapeblue > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > -- > > With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev > > Bitworks Software, Ltd. > > Cell: +7-923-414-1515 > > WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/> > > -- With best regards, Ivan Kudryavtsev Bitworks Software, Ltd. Cell: +7-923-414-1515 WWW: http://bitworks.software/ <http://bw-sw.com/>
