Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E846D10300 for ; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:55:09 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 47297 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2014 05:54:11 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cloudstack-dev-archive@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 46925 invoked by uid 500); 10 Jan 2014 05:53:52 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cloudstack.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cloudstack.apache.org Received: (qmail 46832 invoked by uid 99); 10 Jan 2014 05:53:46 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:53:46 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.5 required=5.0 tests=HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com designates 209.85.219.53 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.219.53] (HELO mail-oa0-f53.google.com) (209.85.219.53) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 10 Jan 2014 05:53:40 +0000 Received: by mail-oa0-f53.google.com with SMTP id h16so4429535oag.26 for ; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:53:19 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3dl0PJLW3Y0vJA8xg97uvhOmNwOd3268ALxKsEbORsc=; b=Tpaflz6pAVS35dtj2m4gHnjWl9gGXQwwqrGmG+ibI2Aooe7q1JPiQ4pZQB2mbbJxcM T8lMiiYv5pcLi+kJVpJeLXJ0h8OyHV1O4d+AXE6/efCpmAOkYcH9nTj6brAtvnkVLV1u PbsDEzksUJImT/e9GrndqcFFHf+2PWuklL3yG2UYYfj6PoJzeILNczdf5ljRS8abG4NT Hrw37lqixR7yWiBbS+yXo152ak0jH6jV2sIESqafkKEpxFqT/WoojscrutTPitV1aY0o USuS+CsgLLlgoj8pMzIGsU1N12x3p5NvHm/Ux0cyR+q6aeSfjpnoeYiEj9CcABaW5azm j44A== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlF5GMfthWJtyVmS7yzKy6Ycpzk8LCC6OVbAy7lzrSii+plALDz01V7KA9ADKyeO3nX6CDm MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.182.43.161 with SMTP id x1mr5803186obl.5.1389333199594; Thu, 09 Jan 2014 21:53:19 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.182.79.130 with HTTP; Thu, 9 Jan 2014 21:53:19 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Thu, 9 Jan 2014 22:53:19 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: deployVm with data disk From: Mike Tutkowski To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org" Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c30ce2d6364104ef97577e X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org --001a11c30ce2d6364104ef97577e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Now that you mention it, I think CS does get confused about this. I may have seen this last week. The way it works (depending on if you're using an ISO or a template), CS acts in a non-intuitive way. In one case (I can't remember if this is for ISOs or templates), you pick a Compute Offering and a Disk Offering, but the Compute Offering is really only used for non-storage parameters whereas the Disk Offering is used to determine how large to make the disk, etc. If the storage tags are the same (for the CO and DO), it works; otherwise, it doesn't. I believe I wrote a note to myself to log a bug for this. It appears you've stumbled upon it, though, already. On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Marcus Sorensen wrote= : > No, we have two primary storages, one tagged "foo", one tagged "bar". > We have two disk offerings implementing these. We can verify that data > disks deploy properly to both. Then we have a service offering with > storage tag "foo". We can deploy a VM with a data disk tagged "foo" > but not one named "bar". It's as if the deploy command sees a conflict > between storage tags. According to the logs it doesn't even find a > storage pool to try, but if we deploy the offering without a data disk > it works fine. > > I spent a little while this evening trying to unravel how the > allocators and deployment planner work, but really at this point all I > have is the behavior, and it seems to indicate that one cannot deploy > a service offering with a data disk that has a non-matching tag. > > On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Nitin Mehta > wrote: > > In addition, do check if there are at least 1 PS for each of the tags i= n > > the same cluster. > > Pasting the snippet of logs with failure would help. (But do paste the > > entire snippet for vm deployment) > > > > > > On 09/01/14 8:14 PM, "Mike Tutkowski" > wrote: > > > >>Are you saying there was no primary storage tagged "bar"? > >> > >>If that is the case, I guess I would expect the deployment of the VM to > >>fail because not all of the criteria could be met. > >> > >> > >>On Thu, Jan 9, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Marcus Sorensen > >>wrote: > >> > >>> Is this a bug (perhaps fixed), or expected behavior? > >>> > >>> If I create a service offering with storage tag=3Dfoo, and a disk > >>> offering with storage tag=3Dbar, I cannot provide this disk offering = as > >>> a data disk to deploy along with this service offering. The root > >>> volume gets allocated, and then the data disk fails. > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >>-- > >>*Mike Tutkowski* > >>*Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* > >>e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com > >>o: 303.746.7302 > >>Advancing the way the world uses the > >>cloud > >>* * > > > --=20 *Mike Tutkowski* *Senior CloudStack Developer, SolidFire Inc.* e: mike.tutkowski@solidfire.com o: 303.746.7302 Advancing the way the world uses the cloud *=99* --001a11c30ce2d6364104ef97577e--