Bug 1631878

Summary: new AWS instance types - m5,r5,c5, etc. - missing in Sat6
Product: Red Hat Satellite Reporter: Dan Yocum <dyocum>
Component: Compute Resources - EC2Assignee: satellite6-bugs <satellite6-bugs>
Status: CLOSED MIGRATED QA Contact: Satellite QE Team <sat-qe-bz-list>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 6.3.0CC: apatel, bbuckingham, biholmes, bkearney, jpasqual, kgaikwad, lhellebr, pcreech, rjerrido, rlavi
Target Milestone: UnspecifiedKeywords: MigratedToJIRA, Triaged
Target Release: Unused   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: tfm-rubygem-fog-aws-3.6.5 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2024-06-05 21:30:54 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:
Attachments:
Description Flags
on_sat.txt
none
on_aws.txt none

Description Dan Yocum 2018-09-21 19:18:29 UTC
Description of problem:

Flavor field is missing several AWS instance types.

I see t1, various t2, various m1, m2,  m3, m4, c1, c3, c4, r3, r4, and a few more.

What I do not see are m5 and r5 types listed.   m5 has been out a while so I expected to see these in the list for sure.   r5 are relatively newer so it might make sense that they are missing.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):

Will get back to you with this...

Comment 1 Dan Yocum 2018-09-21 19:53:00 UTC
Version is 6.3

Comment 3 Billy Holmes 2018-10-04 15:53:17 UTC
Foreman compute resources uses fog-aws as the client to EC2. This is where the flavors are defined. Even in upstream, there are missing instance types (m5d, t3, etc).

https://github.com/fog/fog-aws

As you can see[1] the more modern instance types are not listed.

1: https://github.com/fog/fog-aws/blob/master/lib/fog/aws/models/compute/flavors.rb

Comment 5 Surjeet Salvi 2019-09-05 09:52:34 UTC
Description of problem:

While creating the host using hammer command, cu can able to specify any flavor using the compute-attributes argument

hammer host create --compute-attributes="flavor_id=t3.micro"

But some of the AWS instances (like t3 instances) are not available on the Satellite WEBUI.

Satellite Version - 6.5.1

Comment 12 Lukáš Hellebrandt 2020-09-23 13:40:18 UTC
I'm not sure what I should check here. Only the flavors that are mentioned here? Or check that flavors offered in Satellite match those accessible in AWS (through WebUI for example)?

Because they don't. For example, r6gd.xlarge is only on web and g3dn.xlarge is only on Satellite.

That even means it's possible to select a flavor that is not on the AWS at all, leading to error:
```
Unable to save
Failed to create a compute ec2-4 (us-west-2-EC2) instance adam-mcgown.hpe2.lab.eng.bos.redhat.com: InvalidParameterValue => Invalid value 'g3dn.xlarge' for InstanceType.
```

Setting to failed as this doesn't seem fixed to me. Please let me know if you insist on just verifying the flavors mentioned here, in that case I'll report a new BZ.

Comment 23 Lukáš Hellebrandt 2022-08-04 11:02:21 UTC
Yes, I can confirm this still happens on 6.11. There are flavors listed in Satellite which I can't see in AWS and there are flavors in AWS which I can't see on Satellite. The difference is huge, there are 557 flavors on AWS and 276 on Satellite, plus bear in mind some of those are not common in these two sets. I think this problem will last as long as the flavors are hardcoded in fog-aws. Attaching the current list of flavors available on AWS (note that some of them are greyed-out in  AWS WebUI - however, there are some that are not greyed out and are missing in Satellite) and Satellite.

Comment 24 Lukáš Hellebrandt 2022-08-04 11:03:04 UTC
Created attachment 1903532 [details]
on_sat.txt

Comment 25 Lukáš Hellebrandt 2022-08-04 11:03:46 UTC
Created attachment 1903533 [details]
on_aws.txt

Comment 26 Brad Buckingham 2024-02-11 20:37:14 UTC
Upon review of our valid but aging backlog the Satellite Team has concluded that this Bugzilla does not meet the criteria for a resolution in the near term, and are planning to close in a month. This message may be a repeat of a previous update and the bug is again being considered to be closed. If you have any concerns about this, please contact your Red Hat Account team.  Thank you.

Comment 29 Brad Buckingham 2024-03-20 19:44:20 UTC
Based upon feedback during auto-closure, leaving this bugzilla open a while longer for additional discussion; however, it may be closed in a future iteration.

Comment 30 Eric Helms 2024-06-05 21:30:54 UTC
This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there.

Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated.  Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information.

To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "SAT-" followed by an integer.  You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like:

"Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567

In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information.

Comment 31 Red Hat Bugzilla 2024-10-04 04:25:05 UTC
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 120 days