cloudstack-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jose Rozanec <>
Subject Re: Json related exception when invoking ec2 command
Date Thu, 21 Jun 2012 17:01:21 GMT

I just wanted to ask if the following issue about domain uuid/id mapping at
cloudbridge (below I copy the lines) was filed, and which if there is a
link to it at the bug tracker:

./ec2-run-instances -z zone1 -n 1 -t m1.small --connection-timeout 120
--request-timeout 120 208
we are getting the following exception on the cloudbridge log:

   1. returned:
   2. 2012-05-29 14:46:35,852 DEBUG [cloud.stack.CloudStackClient]
   (catalina-exec-11:) Unable to find responseObjName:[resourcelimit].
    Returning null! Exception: The JsonDeserializer LongDeserializer failed to
   deserialized json object "a93fb664-b4df-4839-abbb-0baea5acc940" given the
   type class java.lang.Long

Full stack trace here:

It seems it makes a request to do some validations related to resource
limits. It gets a correct response, but it expects to get a long at domainid,
not the uuid string, and this seems to break the call.



On Wed, May 30, 2012 at 8:27 PM, Sam Robertson <>wrote:

> Hi Jose,
> This is the other major problem with CloudBridge and 3.0 CloudStack.  As
> you note the ID's are now actually UUIDs.
> On May 30, 2012, at 8:21 AM, Jose Rozanec wrote:
> Hello,
> Temporarily we overcome the error handling the response before delivered to
> cloudbridge server and fixing the values. When that was done, we got the
> following:
> Server.InternalError: Property deployvirtualmachineresponse.virtualmachine
> is resolved to null JSON element on object:
> {"deployvirtualmachineresponse":{"errorcode":431,"errortext":"Unable to
> execute API command deployvirtualmachine due to invalid value. Object
> disk_offering(uuid: 2224444f-6a56-448e-b) does not exist."}}
> Looking at the cloudbridge
> /usr/share/cloud/bridge/conf/ file, we saw all
> properties were correctly set. Looking at cloudbridge database, at the
> offering_bundle table, we saw the uuid string causing the problem.
> At first we thought there was a user error when inserting the value, since
> those values were inserted manually. (I'm not sure what the expected
> behaviour is: the cloud-setup-bridge creates a properties file and sets up
> amazon-cloudstack mappings, but values are being retrieved from the
> cloudbridge database and not being inserted into it.
> Did we miss something here?)
> The way this works is the setup script creates the
> file.  When CloudBridge launches, it checks the database and if the
> offering_bundle table is empty, it will populate it with the entries in the
>  I'm not sure what the original design decision
> was, but I imagine it was handled this way to reduce the complexity of the
> setup-bridge script.  Any updates to the file won't change the database
> unless the table is empty.  The bigger problem, as you mentioned above is
> the column width for cloudstackoffering column being only 20 in length.
> We tried to update the value with the correct string, but we got the
> following warning:
> *************************** 1. row ***************************
>  Level: Warning
>  Code: 1265
> Message: Data truncated for column 'CloudStackOffering' at row 1
> 1 row in set (0.00 sec)
> As a temporary solution we tried recreating the table with same parameters
> did not work. Recreating the offering_bundle table changing the varchar(20)
> to varchar(100) at CloudStackOffering column solved the issue: the uuid was
> no longer truncated:
> CREATE TABLE `offering_bundle` (`ID` int(11) NOT NULL
> AUTO_INCREMENT,`AmazonEC2Offering` varchar(100) NOT
> NULL,`CloudStackOffering` varchar(100) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY (`ID`),UNIQUE
> KEY `one_offering` (`AmazonEC2Offering`)) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=2
> Did anyone had a similar problem?
> I posted 1.1.1 last night which contains fixes for the ID properties, but
> this issue and your run-instances issue aren't resolved in that build.  You
> are more than welcome to look at the code and contribute any changes to
> cloudbridge, if you would like
> to help make it better support 3.0.   Keep in mind the EC2 support being
> integrated in the next version of CloudStack 3.0 is a fork of this project
> with many changes (including the ones you've identified here) already made.
> Thanks,
> Jose.
> \
> Sam

This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the
use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the presence of viruses.
The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this email.

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