Could you post the complete log output from the point where you press
launch? ie. start a tail the second right before you do, that would help us
figure out why hosts are put in avoid set.


-- 
Erik


On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 1:02 PM, Martin Emrich <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Hi Dan,
>
> It is only happening with instances created from this specific template.
>
> Also, sometimes creating an instance does not work at all, with various
> errors. I just tried to recreate the template, and when I try to create an
> instance from it, I get (after a minute or so):
>
> Job failed due to exception Unable to create a deployment for
> VM[User|i-2-60-VM]
>
> In the management-server.log, I get:
>
> com.cloud.exception.InsufficientServerCapacityException: Unable to create
> a deployment for VM[User|i-2-60-VM]Scope=interface
> com.cloud.dc.DataCenter; id=1
>         at com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.orchestrateStart(
> VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:946)
>         at com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.orchestrateStart(
> VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:5190)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke0(Native Method)
>         at sun.reflect.NativeMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> NativeMethodAccessorImpl.java:57)
>         at sun.reflect.DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.invoke(
> DelegatingMethodAccessorImpl.java:43)
>         at java.lang.reflect.Method.invoke(Method.java:606)
>         at com.cloud.vm.VmWorkJobHandlerProxy.handleVmWorkJob(
> VmWorkJobHandlerProxy.java:107)
>         at com.cloud.vm.VirtualMachineManagerImpl.handleVmWorkJob(
> VirtualMachineManagerImpl.java:5335)
>         at com.cloud.vm.VmWorkJobDispatcher.runJob(
> VmWorkJobDispatcher.java:102)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.framework.jobs.impl.
> AsyncJobManagerImpl$5.runInContext(AsyncJobManagerImpl.java:503)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.
> ManagedContextRunnable$1.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:49)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.
> DefaultManagedContext$1.call(DefaultManagedContext.java:56)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.
> DefaultManagedContext.callWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:103)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.impl.
> DefaultManagedContext.runWithContext(DefaultManagedContext.java:53)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.managed.context.
> ManagedContextRunnable.run(ManagedContextRunnable.java:46)
>         at org.apache.cloudstack.framework.jobs.impl.
> AsyncJobManagerImpl$5.run(AsyncJobManagerImpl.java:460)
>         at java.util.concurrent.Executors$RunnableAdapter.
> call(Executors.java:471)
>         at java.util.concurrent.FutureTask.run(FutureTask.java:262)
>         at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor.runWorker(
> ThreadPoolExecutor.java:1145)
>         at java.util.concurrent.ThreadPoolExecutor$Worker.run(
> ThreadPoolExecutor.java:615)
>         at java.lang.Thread.run(Thread.java:745)
>
>
> Earlier, I see
>
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,646 ERROR [c.c.v.VmWorkJobHandlerProxy]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702)
> Invocation exception, caused by: com.cloud.exception.
> InsufficientServerCapacityException: Unable to create a dep
> loyment for VM[User|i-2-60-VM]Scope=interface com.cloud.dc.DataCenter;
> id=1
>
> but there are lots of ressources available.
>
> Scrolling further up, I see:
>
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,095 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) FirstFitAllocator has 2 hosts to check for
> allocation: [Host[-5-Routing], Host[-6-Rou
> ting]]
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,098 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) Found 2 hosts for allocation after
> prioritization: [Host[-5-Routing], Host[-6-Routing
> ]]
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,098 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) Looking for speed=1000Mhz, Ram=1024
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,098 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) Host name: dev-xen01, hostId: 5 is in avoid set,
> skipping this and trying other a
> vailable hosts
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,098 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) Host name: dev-xen02, hostId: 6 is in avoid set,
> skipping this and trying other a
> vailable hosts
> 2014-08-05 12:53:57,098 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator]
> (Work-Job-Executor-36:ctx-ca0b66c4 job-633/job-635 ctx-0df40702
> FirstFitRoutingAllocator) Host Allocator returning 0 suitable hosts
>
>
> so both hosts are on some "avoid" list... At some other attempts, I get
> less specific errors.
>
> All in all, Cloudstack behaves "nondeterministic"... Sometimes an
> operation fails, the next day, the same operation succeeds somewhat.
>
> I also wonder why many of these error log messages are classified as
> "DEBUG", which makes it hard to find the source of the problem. Did I
> overlook something?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Martin
>
>
> Am 05.08.2014 09:39, schrieb Daan Hoogland:
>
>  Martin, is the shutting down happening with the systemvms or guest vms or
>> both?
>> Do you see this also when you boot a vm of the same template in xen
>> directly?
>>
>> regards,
>>
>> On Tue, Aug 5, 2014 at 8:37 AM, Martin Emrich <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi!
>>>
>>> Am 04.08.2014 21:01, schrieb Pierre-Luc Dion:
>>>
>>>  Hi Martin,
>>>>
>>>> I might not be able to help you much on that, but did you look at
>>>> XenCenter
>>>> to see if you had something similar like this:
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-7225
>>>>
>>>> Basically, SystemVM paused instead of remaining started or perform a
>>>> reboot.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Actually, I had this problem, too. After restarting (and possibly
>>> upgrading)
>>> the SystemVMs with cloudstack-sysvmadm several times, I got them all
>>> running.
>>>
>>> All in all, this is quite "nondeterministic"...
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

Reply via email to