Bug 1882723
| Summary: | [vsphere]Suggested mimimum value for providerspec not working | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | OpenShift Container Platform | Reporter: | Milind Yadav <miyadav> |
| Component: | Cloud Compute | Assignee: | Alexander Demicev <ademicev> |
| Cloud Compute sub component: | Other Providers | QA Contact: | Milind Yadav <miyadav> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | ||
| Priority: | unspecified | CC: | mimccune |
| Version: | 4.6 | Keywords: | UpcomingSprint |
| Target Milestone: | --- | ||
| Target Release: | 4.7.0 | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: |
Cause: The disk size must be greater than the initial image size, but this was not reported.
Consequence: Machines failed to boot without warning when the disk size was low
Fix: Warn users when creating or updating disks with low disk size
Result: If a user creates or updates a Machine/MachineSet with the disk size below the recommended minimum, they will be warned that their disk size is low and may cause machines to not start
|
Story Points: | --- |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2021-02-24 15:21:16 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
Milind Yadav
2020-09-25 12:51:59 UTC
The reported error there is because you have a disk size set to zero, I would suggest a zero disk size is not valid and that we should probably return an error if no disk size is given. Do people agree with this: - DiskGiB == 0: Machine/MachineSet creation rejected with invalid disk size - 0 < DiskGiB < 120: Machine/MachineSet creation accepted with warning 'x is less than the recommended minimum (120): nodes may fail to start if disk size is too low' - DiskGiB > 0 : Machine/MachineSet creation accepted without warning We will try to resolve this issue during the next sprint, we need to discuss the above suggestions and verify that the recommendations we are providing for users are valid the PR associated with this issue is under review Validation info below :
[miyadav@miyadav vsphere]$ oc create -f 47_ms.yaml
W1209 19:33:27.685736 60677 warnings.go:67] providerSpec.numCPUs: 0 is missing or less than the minimum value (2): nodes may not boot correctly
W1209 19:33:27.685782 60677 warnings.go:67] providerSpec.memoryMiB: 0 is missing or less than the recommended minimum value (2048): nodes may not boot correctly
W1209 19:33:27.685789 60677 warnings.go:67] providerSpec.diskGiB: 0 is missing or less than the recommended minimum (120): nodes may fail to start if disk size is too low
machineset.machine.openshift.io/miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-worker-p created
[miyadav@miyadav vsphere]$ oc get clusterversion
NAME VERSION AVAILABLE PROGRESSING SINCE STATUS
version 4.7.0-0.nightly-2020-12-09-093341 True False 25m Cluster version is 4.7.0-0.nightly-2020-12-09-093341
[miyadav@miyadav vsphere]$ oc get machines
NAME PHASE TYPE REGION ZONE AGE
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-master-0 Running 52m
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-master-1 Running 52m
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-master-2 Running 52m
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-worker-mqtqv Running 47m
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-worker-p-745kf Failed 3m57s
miyadav1209vs-s9ldk-worker-sm86b Running 47m
[miyadav@miyadav vsphere]$
Additional Info:
Moved to VERIFIED
spec used -
spec:
metadata: {}
providerSpec:
value:
network:
devices:
- networkName: qe-segment
template: <template>
workspace:
datacenter: SDDC-Datacenter
datastore: WorkloadDatastore
folder: <Folder>
resourcePool: <REsourcePool>
server: <server>
Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory (Moderate: OpenShift Container Platform 4.7.0 security, bug fix, and enhancement update), and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2020:5633 |