Bug 1465561

Summary:	[RFE] Refuse to deploy on localhost.localdomain
Product:	[oVirt] ovirt-host-deploy	Reporter:	Sandro Bonazzola <sbonazzo>
Component:	General	Assignee:	Asaf Rachmani <arachman>
Status:	CLOSED DUPLICATE	QA Contact:	Petr Matyáš <pmatyas>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	master	CC:	bugs, sbonazzo
Target Milestone:	ovirt-4.4.0	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	---	Flags:	sbonazzo: ovirt-4.4? pmatyas: testing_plan_complete+ ylavi: planning_ack+ sbonazzo: devel_ack+ ylavi: testing_ack?
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2019-06-23 08:07:28 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Integration	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1546838

Description Sandro Bonazzola 2017-06-27 15:55:13 UTC

We have seen several times migration failing due to having host with same name, usually localhost.localdomain, just because that's the default hostname set by anaconda.

In order to avoid later issues, let's refuse to deploy hosts without a hostname set.

Comment 1 Yedidyah Bar David 2017-06-28 05:44:56 UTC

I don't mind preventing hostname 'localhost.localdomain', but perhaps we also want to prevent adding a host whose hostname is already registered as the hostname of another host in the db. This is a larger change, requiring patches at least to the engine, perhaps also vdsm or host-deploy (or both).

Sandro, what do you say?

Comment 2 Sandro Bonazzola 2017-06-28 06:29:26 UTC

(In reply to Yedidyah Bar David from comment #1)
> Sandro, what do you say?

Make sense to me but such a change involve infra changes at engine level.
Oved, what do you think?

Comment 3 Yedidyah Bar David 2017-06-28 06:38:31 UTC

BTW, another alternative is to make migration do work in such a case. Not sure that's easy, but we already know what we need to know - we just need to make libvirt not prevent this. See also bug 1107650.

Comment 4 Oved Ourfali 2017-06-28 07:09:45 UTC

(In reply to Sandro Bonazzola from comment #2)
> (In reply to Yedidyah Bar David from comment #1)
> > Sandro, what do you say?
> 
> Make sense to me but such a change involve infra changes at engine level.
> Oved, what do you think?

I don't think this corner case worths the efforts required around that.

Comment 5 Red Hat Bugzilla Rules Engine 2018-06-12 11:44:54 UTC

This request has been proposed for two releases. This is invalid flag usage. The ovirt-future release flag has been cleared. If you wish to change the release flag, you must clear one release flag and then set the other release flag to ?.

Comment 6 Sandro Bonazzola 2019-01-21 08:28:41 UTC

re-targeting to 4.3.1 since this BZ has not been proposed as blocker for 4.3.0.
If you think this bug should block 4.3.0 please re-target and set blocker flag.

Comment 7 Sandro Bonazzola 2019-02-18 07:54:54 UTC

Moving to 4.3.2 not being identified as blocker for 4.3.1.

Comment 8 Asaf Rachmani 2019-06-23 08:07:28 UTC


*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1546838 ***