cloudstack-issues mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "ASF GitHub Bot (JIRA)" <j...@apache.org>
Subject [jira] [Commented] (CLOUDSTACK-8988) CLOUDSTACK-8988
Date Tue, 01 Dec 2015 13:19:10 GMT

    [ https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8988?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=15033662#comment-15033662
] 

ASF GitHub Bot commented on CLOUDSTACK-8988:
--------------------------------------------

Github user rafaelweingartner commented on the pull request:

    https://github.com/apache/cloudstack/pull/943#issuecomment-160966699
  
    @DaanHoogland, 
    I checked the logs you sent me.
    
    The VMs were marked as destroyed, but it seems that they have not been “destroyed”
or removed/expunged yet. I looked at the code, and the only way that they are removed from
the response of the list VMs methods is after the expunge thread execution that fills out
the “removed” field in the database.
     
    I also looked at the code of the integration tests, my perl is a little rusty, but I noticed
that the code waits a few cycles (2) of the expunge delay to execute; therefore, there is
no way to guarantee that the expunge thread has already been executed and the VM has passed
the expunge delay and has been removed.
    
    If I recall properly, there are mainly three (3) variables in play, the time that the
VM was destroyed, the expunge delay per se and the expunge interval (the interval of the expunge
thread execution). 
    
    So, if the expunge thread runs, but the VM has been destroyed too recently and has not
passed the expunge delay, it will not be marked as destroyed. That is what seems to have happened
there. I know some people may come and say, “the test worked a lot of time”. And yes it
can work, but it depends if you are luck or not. I personally do not like tests that may present
this kind of behavior.  Moreover, the expunge interval depends on the time that the MS has
been started.
    
    I will illustrate it with an example that we have seen happening here.
    Giving that our expunge interval is 24 hours, and our expunge delay is also 24 hours.
Suppose the MS server was started and got up and running at some day at 23:59 and that the
first time the expunge thread runs is 00:00. If we are unlucky and we destroy the VM at 00:01,
next day (second run of the expunge thread) when the thread runs at 00:00, the VM will not
be removed and will continue appearing, since the expunge delay that cotrols the VMs removal
is 24 hours and the VM has been destroyed for 23:59 (almost there, but not yet). Therefore,
the VM will only be removed in the third execution of the expunge thread.
    
    Having said that, I have the following questions, what do we want with that test? We want
to test the expunge thread? Or just test If the destroyed VM is not listed? If we want the
second, why don’t we force the expunging (using expungeVirtualMachine command) instead of
waiting the expunge thread?
    
    If the idea is to let the test as it is, to avoid the problem I have just described, we
could just change a "bit" of the file test_vm_life_cycle the multiplier, in line 632 from
“4” to “6” . That change would guarantee to wait till the third execution of the expunge
thread, and avoid cases as the one described.


> CLOUDSTACK-8988
> ---------------
>
>                 Key: CLOUDSTACK-8988
>                 URL: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-8988
>             Project: CloudStack
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>      Security Level: Public(Anyone can view this level - this is the default.) 
>          Components: Management Server, Projects
>    Affects Versions: 4.7.0
>         Environment: Windows 10; Eclipse;
>            Reporter: Rodrigo Pedro Marques
>            Priority: Minor
>              Labels: easyfix, github-import
>             Fix For: 4.7.0
>
>   Original Estimate: 0h
>  Remaining Estimate: 0h
>
> Removal of cloud-plugin-storage-allocator-random project that was unused.
> File modified: /cloud-server/test/async-job-component.xml. Removed some unused adapters.The
reason for this is explained as follows.
> The adapter configuration is the following:
> <adapters key="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.StorageAllocator">
> <adapter name="Storage"
> class="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.impl.FirstFitStorageAllocator">
> <param name="storage.overprovisioning.factor">2</param>
> </adapter>
> <adapter name="
> class="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.impl.RandomStoragePoolAllocator">
> <param name="storage.overprovisioning.factor">2</param>
> </adapter>
> </adapters>
> • class="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.impl.FirstFitStorageAllocator"
> The class "com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.impl.FirstFitStorageAllocator" does not
exist. The only reference for it is found in the following file:
> - /cloud-server/test/async-job-component.xml
> Therefore, we can conclude that there is no need for this line at that file.
> • class="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.impl.RandomStoragePoolAllocator"
> Additionally, the class RandomStoragePoolAllocator.java is never used. The only reference
is found in the following file:
> /cloud-server/test/async-job-component.xml
> We found a project called “cloud-plugin-storage-allocator-random”. This project has
only one package that contains only one class, which is the RandomStoragePoolAllocator.java.
Despite the names that are the same, the class in “cloud-plugin-storage-allocator-random”
project and the class referenced in - /cloud-server/test/async-job-component.xml have different
packages. Therefore, we removed that configuration from async-job-component.xml and the project
that contains only the RandomStoragePoolAllocator class that is never used.
> Consequently, we had to remove the following lines from the /cloud-client-ui/pom.xml:
> <dependency>
> <groupId>org.apache.cloudstack</groupId>
> <artifactId>cloud-plugin-storage-allocator-random</artifactId>
> <version>${project.version}</version>
> </dependency>
> Those changes leave us with an adapter configuration empty with the following key:
> • key="com.cloud.agent.manager.allocator.StorageAllocator"
> Therefore, we removed it.
> Furthermore, after we removed that configuration we noticed that there is no such class
StorageAllocator.java. However, it appears that exists test for it, like the following classes:
> StorageAllocatorTestConfiguration.java
> StorageAllocatorTest.java. We are not sure if these classes are tests for the class StorageAllocator.java
and for the possible configuration we have just removed. If they are, we can remove both classes.

> We also removed the following configuration from /cloudstack-plugins/pom.xml:
> <module>storage-allocators/random</module>



--
This message was sent by Atlassian JIRA
(v6.3.4#6332)

Mime
View raw message