Bug 1252815
Summary: | Overcloud deployment fails via UI with Quota exceeded messages | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat OpenStack | Reporter: | Marius Cornea <mcornea> |
Component: | rhosp-director | Assignee: | chris alfonso <calfonso> |
Status: | CLOSED DUPLICATE | QA Contact: | yeylon <yeylon> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 7.0 (Kilo) | CC: | akrivoka, bnemec, chris.brown, hbrock, mburns, mcornea, rhel-osp-director-maint, srevivo |
Target Milestone: | z1 | Keywords: | ZStream |
Target Release: | Director | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-08-19 11:15:08 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Marius Cornea
2015-08-12 09:46:04 UTC
Something is not right here. The quotas for the admin user on the undercloud are already set to -1 (unlimited): [cloud-user@undercloud ~]$ nova absolute-limits +--------------------+------+-------+ | Name | Used | Max | +--------------------+------+-------+ | Cores | 1 | -1 | | FloatingIps | 0 | 10 | | ImageMeta | - | 128 | | Instances | 1 | -1 | | Keypairs | - | 100 | | Personality | - | 5 | | Personality Size | - | 10240 | | RAM | 4096 | -1 | | SecurityGroupRules | - | 20 | | SecurityGroups | 1 | 10 | | Server Meta | - | 128 | | ServerGroupMembers | - | 10 | | ServerGroups | 0 | 10 | +--------------------+------+-------+ This is also on 2.1.2-23: [cloud-user@undercloud ~]$ rpm -qa | grep instack instack-undercloud-2.1.2-23.el7ost.noarch Note that quota-defaults is not going to show the actual values for users with custom quota values. absolute-limits is the correct command to check current quota values. Does the UI not use admin on the undercloud? If so, it should because that's what the CLI is using, and having to configure two separate users is just going to cause confusion. > Does the UI not use admin on the undercloud? If so, it should because
> that's what the CLI is using, and having to configure two separate users is
> just going to cause confusion.
It looks that the admin user is part of both admin and service tenants. When logging in the UI the admin user is using the service project so the deployment runs under that project. I was able to pass the deployment after switching to the admin project in the UI.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1248347 *** |