Bug 1854164
| Summary: | Unclear error message when adding more RAM than available on host. | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [oVirt] ovirt-engine | Reporter: | Nikolai Sednev <nsednev> |
| Component: | General | Assignee: | bugs <bugs> |
| Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Nikolai Sednev <nsednev> |
| Severity: | low | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | unspecified | ||
| Version: | 4.4.0 | CC: | ahadas, bugs, srosenbe |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2020-07-07 15:20:08 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | Virt | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
|
Description
Nikolai Sednev
2020-07-06 15:43:59 UTC
(In reply to Nikolai Sednev from comment #0) > Expected results: > Error should be more specific and informative. How would you suggest to improve it? The message seems fine, the solution can be adding say tool tips and / or guided help in order to provide more detailed information. (In reply to Arik from comment #1) > (In reply to Nikolai Sednev from comment #0) > > Expected results: > > Error should be more specific and informative. > > How would you suggest to improve it? I would suggest to check on which host the VM is actively running and then: 1.If customer is trying to add more RAM than available on host, then to print something like "You're not allowed to add more memory to HE-VM, than available on host." 2.If customer is trying to add more memory than the slowest host in cluster can support, then print something like "You're not allowed to add more than (amount of RAM on slowest host in cluster) to be able to run HE-VM on all ha-hoists in cluster". There are two cases and they have to be handled separately and messages should be clear. We wouldn't want to have two different cases when (2) includes (1) - if you set the memory to be higher than the physical memory of the host the HE VM runs on, you necessarily exceeded the physical memory of the minimal HE host. I see your point about second message though - you prefer to be provided with the motivation for the check rather than what the check actually does. In this case though the motivation, in my opinion, it quite clear and it's better to be more explicit about what caused the failure. (In reply to Arik from comment #4) > We wouldn't want to have two different cases when (2) includes (1) - if you > set the memory to be higher than the physical memory of the host the HE VM > runs on, you necessarily exceeded the physical memory of the minimal HE host. > I see your point about second message though - you prefer to be provided > with the motivation for the check rather than what the check actually does. > In this case though the motivation, in my opinion, it quite clear and it's > better to be more explicit about what caused the failure. People who don't know how the code works inside, won't understand current error. IMHO we should refine the message and supply some documentation or pop-up explanation message. I wouldn't be so definite about it - people can understand that without knowing how it's implemented. With no alternative that clearly improves it, keeping it as is. |