Bug 826488

Summary: Require system with at least 65 535 MB RAM but get system with 33792 MB RAM
Product: [Retired] Beaker Reporter: Ľuboš Kardoš <lkardos>
Component: schedulerAssignee: Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan>
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG QA Contact:
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 0.8CC: bpeck, dcallagh, jorton, mishin, rmancy, stl
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard: MC
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-11-07 06:19:39 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 Ľuboš Kardoš 2012-05-30 10:34:27 UTC
Description of problem:
For my test I require a system with at least 65 535 MB RAM. For this I use following xml:
...
<hostRequires>
    <and>
        <key_value key="MEMORY" op="&gt;" value="65535"/>
    </and>
    <system_type value="Machine"/>
</hostRequires>
...
But the system at which is the test executed has only 33792 MB.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a job that requires a system with at least 65 535 MB RAM. Use mentioned xml or clone my recipe: https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510124#task6010064
  
Actual results:
The test is exectued at a system that does not follow requirements.

Expected results:
The test should be executed at a system that follows requirements.

Additional info:
Recipes in which systems does not follows requirements:
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510124#task6010064
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510129#task6010076
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510133#task6010084

Comment 1 Bill Peck 2012-05-30 13:00:24 UTC
key_value for memory is left over from legacy rhts..  Can you try the following xml instead?

<memory op="&gt;" value="65535"/>

Comment 2 Nick Coghlan 2012-10-17 04:36:12 UTC
Bulk reassignment of issues as Bill has moved to another team.

Comment 3 Nick Coghlan 2012-11-07 06:19:39 UTC
As Bill noted, this kind of oddity is part of why the MEMORY key value entry has been replaced with the memory element in the XML format. However, the old mechanism will remain in place for backwards compatibility (despite its issues).