cloudstack-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Chiradeep Vittal <Chiradeep.Vit...@citrix.com>
Subject Re: vms stopped while restarted by user
Date Tue, 15 Jul 2014 19:12:45 GMT
Agree. Not sure why your system is so slow, but these parameters should help

From: Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com>>
Reply-To: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>
Date: Tuesday, July 15, 2014 at 6:29 AM
To: Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zieba@gmail.com<mailto:t.a.zieba@gmail.com>>
Cc: "dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>" <dev@cloudstack.apache.org<mailto:dev@cloudstack.apache.org>>,
Marcus Sorensen <shadowsor@gmail.com<mailto:shadowsor@gmail.com>>, Damoder Reddy
<Damoder.Reddy@citrix.com<mailto:Damoder.Reddy@citrix.com>>
Subject: vms stopped while restarted by user

Tomasz,

I can only fantasize on the full rationale of the implementation of
the retry but in general it makes sense to me. A job has a time to try
and a times tried field. the worker manager has time to sleep and max
retries. As you can see below these are read from the configuration:

        value = params.get("time.to.sleep");
        _timeToSleep = NumbersUtil.parseInt(value, 60) * 1000;

        value = params.get("max.retries");
        _maxRetries = NumbersUtil.parseInt(value, 5);

there is also

        value = params.get("stop.retry.interval");
        _stopRetryInterval = NumbersUtil.parseInt(value, 10 * 60);


The time.to.sleep and stop.retry.interval seem to jointly explain the
ten minute scenario you described in the bug report. They don't do
completely as some of the handling of the values is based on
bitshifting and not on datetime calculus (using mixed factors of
1000,60,60,24 and 365.25)
You can try and play with those to tune your setting. In any case
looking at the vm to decide to restart the vm is not usefull as
Cloudstack will do some cleanup after stopping the instance. You
should really wait untill cloudstack reports on the job with either
succes or error.

On Tue, Jul 15, 2014 at 3:12 PM, Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zieba@gmail.com<mailto:t.a.zieba@gmail.com>>
wrote:
Hello,

The user does not receive confirmation of the operation.
>From the point of view of user input it looks like the machine itself
stopped.

As you can see in the logs, the ACS explicitly sends stop command, as if
they press the Stop button from the GUI, so it is aware of the action from
the perspective of the ACS / MS.

I can not point out which component may be responsible for it.
We have tried to analyze the code to understand what is happening,
but the part of the code related to HAWorker is not very clear.
Unfortunately we could not find online any assumptions on the level of
architecture / design of HAWorker.

Maybe method of small steps help find a solution.
First a small question: why HAWorker performs reschedule. What was the idea
for such action.




2014-07-15 14:26 GMT+02:00 Daan Hoogland <daan.hoogland@gmail.com<mailto:daan.hoogland@gmail.com>>:

Tomasz,

As I understand the issue this is what happens:

The user stops the vm from the UI
The MS sends the stop command to the machine
The machine stops and takes a long time for it
The MS reschedules the stop
Then machine stops
the user starts the machine
the MS get by stopping the machine

Did the user ever get a confirmation that the machine was stopped or
that stopping failed? If so, this is the bug, as it seems the MS works
as designed.

Don't get me wrong; I am trying to figure out a path to a solution for
you. I am not convinced there is a bug in the management server
though. That doesn't mean it can be in cloudstack over all. Either at
a design level or for instance in some inter-process communication.

kind regards,
Daan Hoogland


On Fri, Jul 11, 2014 at 2:45 PM, Tomasz Zięba <t.a.zieba@gmail.com<mailto:t.a.zieba@gmail.com>>
wrote:
> Hello,
>
> We are waiting for the patch with longingly.
>
> Error associated with self-closing of machines causes very serious
> complications, both from the technical (users need to wait for 10
> minutes
> and check if the machine is not closed automatically) as well as the
> business side (this problem does not look very professional from the
> user
> side)
>
> Given that:
> - An error has been detected in February so 5 months ago,
> - in earlier versions  (3.0.2) error does not exists,
> - there is a procedure to reproduce this error,
>
> we would be very grateful if this issue will be resolved in ACS4.4.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tomasz Zięba
> Twitter: @TZieba
> LinkedIn: pl.linkedin.com/pub/tomasz-zięba-ph-d/3b/7a8/ab6/
>


--
Daan


Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message