Bug 918676

Summary: oz fails to install a JEOS on Fedora 18 (i386) but x86_64 works
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Steven Dake <sdake>
Component: ozAssignee: Chris Lalancette <clalancette>
Status: CLOSED CANTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: high Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 19CC: clalancette, Jan.van.Eldik, p, sdake
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: i386   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-05-01 02:09:07 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
image of failed install
none
jeos tdl none

Description Steven Dake 2013-03-06 17:48:25 UTC
Created attachment 706173 [details]
image of failed install

Description of problem:
Running heat-jeos (which uses the oz library) produces an error (attached) on boot of the virtual machine during install.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
13499e9e9b34d00e4cbf8e0b1a4775746e8fd99b

How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. git clone git://github.com/heat-api/heat-jeos.git
2. use latest oz upstream
3. put Fedora 18 iso in /var/lib/libvirt/images
4. heat-jeos create F18-i386-cfntools
  
Actual results:
image is not created

Expected results:
image is created

Additional info:

Comment 1 Chris Lalancette 2013-03-06 18:08:36 UTC
Hm, odd.  I just tested it out here on the same revision, and it works just fine.  A few questions:

1)  My host is Fedora-17 x86_64 (kernel 3.7.9-104, libvirt-0.9.11.9, libguestfs-1.8.11).  What is your host, and your version of the above packages?
2)  My installation ISO is Fedora-18-i386-DVD.iso, sha256sum a22e6ab7b0e5e93397e4a1d8d994693d0afb9ad46b1f47a4fe10bfbbc2e7f354.  Which ISO are you using, and what is the sha256sum?
3)  What does the TDL that heat passes to Oz look like?

I'm not quite sure what is going on, but hopefully some of the above answers will narrow it down.

Chris

Comment 2 Steven Dake 2013-03-06 18:51:58 UTC
Note I had believed F18 x86_64 worked but I just gave it another go and same results.

Host is  2.6.32-353.el6.x86_64

a22e6ab7b0e5e93397e4a1d8d994693d0afb9ad46b1f47a4fe10bfbbc2e7f354  Fedora-18-i386-DVD.iso

TDL is attached

Comment 3 Steven Dake 2013-03-06 18:53:07 UTC
Created attachment 706211 [details]
jeos tdl

Comment 4 Fedora End Of Life 2013-04-03 14:10:49 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 19 development cycle.
Changing version to '19'.

(As we did not run this process for some time, it could affect also pre-Fedora 19 development
cycle bugs. We are very sorry. It will help us with cleanup during Fedora 19 End Of Life. Thank you.)

More information and reason for this action is here:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping/Fedora19

Comment 5 Chris Lalancette 2013-04-09 02:35:27 UTC
I just tried again, through heat-jeos itself.  I didn't get all the way through the install; it failed while trying to do an ssh.  Still, I got a lot further than the error shown here, so I'm thinking it must be environmental somehow.  I still don't have any good ideas of what the problem could be; I'll think about it some more and see if we can come up with some kind of debug that would help.

Chris

Comment 6 Chris Lalancette 2013-05-01 02:09:07 UTC
OK.  After doing a search on Bugzilla, this is probably a bug in curl; see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=906031 .  Basically curl does an erroneous network test when it is first invoked; if your connection is too slow, it will report an error, which causes this problem[1].  Given that it is a bug in the F-18 installer, I don't think there is much that we can do here.  The problem should be fixed in F-19, so it would probably be worthwhile to test again there.  I'm going to close this out as CANTFIX; feel free to reopen if you disagree.

[1] At least, that is my quick summary after skimming the bug.