Bug 1006966

Summary: No notification when no host can be chosen as SPM
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: vvyazmin <vvyazmin>
Component: ovirt-engineAssignee: Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact: Aharon Canan <acanan>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.3.0CC: abaron, acathrow, amureini, hateya, iheim, lpeer, Rhev-m-bugs, scohen, yeylon
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Triaged
Target Release: 3.4.0Flags: scohen: needinfo+
amureini: needinfo-
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: storage
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-12-31 13:06:38 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Storage RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Attachments:
Description Flags
## Logs rhevm, vdsm, libvirt, thread dump, superVdsm none

Description vvyazmin@redhat.com 2013-09-11 15:17:28 UTC
Created attachment 796442 [details]
## Logs rhevm, vdsm, libvirt, thread dump, superVdsm

Description of problem:
No notification when no host can be chosen as SPM

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHEVM 3.3 - IS13 environment:

RHEVM:  rhevm-3.3.0-0.19.master.el6ev.noarch
PythonSDK:  rhevm-sdk-python-3.3.0.13-1.el6ev.noarch
VDSM:  vdsm-4.12.0-105.git0da1561.el6ev.x86_64
LIBVIRT:  libvirt-0.10.2-18.el6_4.9.x86_64
QEMU & KVM:  qemu-kvm-rhev-0.12.1.2-2.355.el6_4.7.x86_64
SANLOCK:  sanlock-2.8-1.el6.x86_64

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create Data Center with multiple Hosts
2. Define all hosts with -1 priority.
3. Check that you are getting notification that no host can be chosen as SPM.

Actual results:
No notification appeared

Expected results:
Appropriate notification appear.

Impact on user:
none

Workaround:
none

Additional info:
Print screen attached

/var/log/ovirt-engine/engine.log

/var/log/vdsm/vdsm.log

Comment 3 Allon Mureinik 2013-12-03 12:26:42 UTC
Sean,

What's your two cents here?
Should such a conf. even be allowed?

Comment 4 Sean Cohen 2013-12-31 13:06:38 UTC
(In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #3)
No, not a supported configuration (and for that matter, not a bug)

Comment 5 Allon Mureinik 2014-01-01 14:44:52 UTC
(In reply to Sean Cohen from comment #4)
> (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #3)
> No, not a supported configuration (and for that matter, not a bug)
So shouldn't we have a validation to make sure that at least one host has prioty >-1 ?