The fix of #7070 is not included in 4.17.2.0.

It will be in the next major release 4.18.0.0, and the next minor 4.17
release if there will be 4.17.3.0 release.

-Wei

On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 11:56, <[email protected]> wrote:

> Sure, I will. I also opened
> https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/7070. ;-)
>
> -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> Von: Wei ZHOU <[email protected]>
> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2023 11:25
> An: [email protected]
> Betreff: Re: issue with compute offering using custom disk offering
>
> Hi Swen,
>
> Can you create a github issue with some details ?
>
> -Wei
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 10:44, <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > Hi Wei,
> >
> > I am using 4.17.2.0 and still run into this. It is not fixed.
> >
> > Swen
> >
> > -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> > Von: Wei ZHOU <[email protected]>
> > Gesendet: Donnerstag, 19. Januar 2023 10:34
> > An: [email protected]
> > Betreff: Re: issue with compute offering using custom disk offering
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> > This issue should have been fixed in 4.17.1
> >
> > see
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/6441
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6447
> > https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/issues/6565
> >
> > -Wei
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 19 Jan 2023 at 10:26, <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > I run into an issue with some specific configuration regarding
> > > compute offerings where diskofferingstrictness is true and using
> > > disk offerings where custom disk size is enabled.
> > >
> > > It is not really a bug, but I need some input what the best way is
> > > to deal with this.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > When using this kind of setup and you want to create a new VM via
> > > the UI wizard you will always run into an error like this:
> > >
> > > VM Creation failed. Volume size: -1GB is out of allowed range. Max:
> > > 1024
> > > Min:1
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > It makes total sense, because you do not provide a value for the
> > > root disk size. To fix this you just need to enable the button for
> > > "Override root disk size" in the Template/ISO section. This will add
> > > rootdisksize to the api call to create the VM.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Is this a situation we want a typical user of the UI to be in with
> > > in the first place? Any idea how to take care of this kind of
> situation?
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Here are the steps to reproduce this situation:
> > >
> > > 1.      Add a new Disk Offering
> > >
> > >
> > > /client/api/?isMirrored=false&name=Test+Custom+Disk+Offering&display
> > > te
> > > xt=Tes
> > >
> > > t+Custom+Disk+Offering&storageType=shared&cacheMode=none&provisionin
> > > t+Custom+Disk+gT
> > > t+Custom+Disk+ype=th
> > >
> > > in&customized=true&disksizestrictness=false&command=createDiskOfferi
> > > ng
> > > &respo
> > > nse=json
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 2.      Create a new Compute Offering with diskofferingstrictness=true
> > > (please be aware that in 4.17.2.0 there is a bug and you cannot do
> > > this via UI. There is a button for this, but it is broken) You need
> > > to add the disk offering uuid in this api call!
> > >
> > >
> > > /client/api/?issystem=false&name=Test+Compute+Offering&displaytext=T
> > > es
> > > t+Comp
> > >
> > > ute+Offering&customized=false&offerha=false&limitcpuuse=false&dynami
> > > ute+cs
> > > ute+caling
> > >
> > > enabled=false&diskofferingid=<uuid>&cpunumber=1&cpuspeed=500&memory=
> > > 51
> > > 2&comm
> > > and=createServiceOffering&diskofferingstrictness=true&response=json
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 3.      Go to the instance wizard in the UI and choose the just created
> > > Compute offering. Do not click anything else and go straight to
> > > "Launch instance".
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > UI will pass the api call deployVirtualMachine without any rootsize
> > > in the header which will bring up the error. Now just enable
> > > "Override root disk size" in the Template/ISO section and click
> > > "Launch instance" gain. This time it will work and rootdisksize is
> > > added to the
> > api call header.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Swen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

Reply via email to