Thank you ! :) On Sat, Apr 1, 2023 at 4:39 AM Sina Kashipazha <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Let me explain them case by case, I hope it answers your question :-) > > > First Round: > > Migrate VM-1 from Node84 to Node85 -> Migration cancelled because Host > does not have enough capacity for vm. > > CloudStack started the VM on the source host (Node84) > > > > Second Round: > > Deploy 4GB ram on Node84 -> Unsuccessful, unable to create a deployment > for VM instance. > > CloudStack created the VM in error state. The VM is not usable and I can > only expunge it. > > > > Third Round: > > Deploy 4GB (without specifying the host id) -> Unsuccessful, unable to > create a deployment for VM instance > > The result was the same as the second round, CloudStack created the VM in > error state. The VM is not usable and I can only expunge it. > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > On Friday, March 31st, 2023 at 8:55 AM, jordan j <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Thank you Sina! > > > > > By unsuccessful do you mean that CS allows the operation but it gets > > performed unsuccessfully (hypervisor create task fails)? Or does CS just > > refuse the operation ? > > > > > Regards, > > Jordan > > > > > On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 7:12 PM Sina Kashipazha > > [email protected] wrote: > > > > > > Hey Jordan, > > > > > > > It seems to be a race condition, I ran small scenario which failed. > This > > > was my setup: > > > > > > > Node: > > > Node84: 8GB ram available, 4GB of that allocated to the VM-1 > > > Node85: 8GB ram, NO VMs.{} > > > > > > > The following actions run at the same time using cmk: > > > > > > > Deploy 4GB ram on Node84 > > > Migrate VM-1 from Node84 to Node85 > > > Deploy 4GB (without specifying the host id) > > > > > > > First Round: > > > Deploy 4GB ram on Node84 -> Successful > > > Migrate VM-1 from Node84 to Node85 -> Migration cancelled because Host > > > does not have enough capacity for vm > > > Deploy 4GB (without specifying the host id) -> Successful > > > > > > > Second Round: > > > Deploy 4GB ram on Node84 -> Unsuccessful, unable to create a deployment > > > for VM instance > > > Migrate VM-1 from Node84 to Node85 -> Successful > > > Deploy 4GB (without specifying the host id) -> Successful > > > > > > > Third Round: > > > Deploy 4GB ram on Node84 -> Successful > > > Migrate VM-1 from Node84 to Node85 -> Successful > > > Deploy 4GB (without specifying the host id) -> Unsuccessful, unable to > > > create a deployment for VM instance > > > > > > > Fourth Round: > > > Same as first round. > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > Sina > > > > > > > ------- Original Message ------- > > > On Thursday, March 30th, 2023 at 2:24 PM, jordan j [email protected] > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey everyone, > > > > > > > > > This week we are doing performance tests on the environment and we > > > > noticed > > > > something weird. > > > > > > > > > Setup: > > > > - Cloudstack 4.17.2 + XCP-NG advanced network with SG. > > > > - zone with 30 XCP hosts (in 30 clusters) each with 100 GB ram and > 100 > > > > cores > > > > - There is one compute offering with user dispersing planner. The > > > > offering > > > > has a local storage bound (no shared storage on servers) . > > > > > > > > > Using terraform we tried to deploy 60 instances, 49 GB of ram each > and 50 > > > > cores. > > > > Some of them were not deployed (about 5). > > > > Running the same task again and again eventually makes the failed > > > > instances > > > > be deployed eventually. > > > > > > > > > Wondering why this happens... looking at the logs i found out that > the > > > > VMs > > > > fail because of not enough memory on the XCPs. Error comes from XAPI > and > > > > not from Cloudstack which makes me conclude that Cloudstack allows > the > > > > task > > > > but for some reason the scheduler/planner does not compute the memory > > > > resource properly. I wonder if there is a race condition problem > where 2 > > > > instances are assigned the same host server and what happens is sa > both > > > > get > > > > created there is memory just for one of them. > > > > > > > > > Tried to simulate the issue by simultaneously creating instances > from the > > > > GUI on a group of 2 servers but it seems GUI-created-instances even > if > > > > launched together are executed in order so the scheduler detects when > > > > there > > > > is no more RAM and the rest of the processes are stopped. > > > > > > > > > Has anyone experienced such a problem? > > > > > > > > > Regards, > > > > Jordan
