Description of problem:
This is based on conversations around https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1070908 . We need virt-what to consider ppc64 systems running
in/on a LPAR as virt-guests.
That bug is about subman codes method of counting cpu sockets on a system that is a ppc64 lpar partition (which is currently wrong). But, discussions with email@example.com came to the conclusion that that instance should be considered a virt guest (where for new entitlements, the cpu socket count doesn't matter).
But, for those systems we are not currently detecting them as virt guests.
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHEL7 versions (virt-what-1.13-5 was on one system)
Steps to reproduce:
Need a ppc64 system running in a LPAR and I believe with the hardware running powerVM.
virt-what returns nothing
I am not actually sure how to detect if the system is running as an LPAR.
I'd like to suggest that this issue be reconsidered.
It recently came up on beaker-user-list that Beaker's inventory system currently reports LPAR systems with shared resources as not having a hypervisor. In the context of performance testing, this means that filters to request bare metal systems may come up with LPAR hosts running with access to shared resources, and hence the benchmark results may be affected by activity in other partitions on the same host.
While I can understand an LPAR with a static resource assignment being considered "equivalent to bare metal", and hence not reporting a hypervisor, one running with shared resources is just as unreliable for benchmarking purposes as any VM running on KVM/Xen/VMWare/Hyper-V.
We'll aim to address this issue directly in beaker-system-scan regardless (see bug 1132791), but that shared vs static distinction seems potentially relevant here as well.
Gonna need access, or someone to send me a patch.
It would still be useful to have ppc64 lpar detection built into virt-what, even if we (subscription-manager and entitlements) don't necessarily consider ppc64 lpar systems to count as virt guests. It would be easier to have that info and ignore it that to not have it at all.
PowerKVM support also confuses that matter.
Also, support for detection of ppc64 KVM and PowerKVM.
virt-what-1.13 fails to detect KVM on ppc64.
However systemd-detect-virt does.
Created attachment 1116413 [details]
add ppc64 lpar and kvm detection to virt-what
This is based on the mailing list about the facts collected by subscription-manager for ppc64. This adds info about ppc64 virt modes to virt-what so subscription-manager will correctly the 'virt.is_guest' fact.
Note this makes a bit of an assumption, namely that ppc64 lpar guests are 'virt'.
My preference would be for virt-what to indicate a lpar guests, and include the
virt type. If RHSM/subscription-manager later need to special case ppc64/lpar to not count as 'virt', we can do that with the info available.
This request was not resolved in time for the current release.
Red Hat invites you to ask your support representative to
propose this request, if still desired, for consideration in
the next release of Red Hat Enterprise Linux.
Comment 13 added as an upstream patch:
*** Bug 1292403 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Created attachment 1169917 [details]
Created attachment 1169918 [details]
Verified with the packages:
1. Prepare a RHEL system on LPAR.
To find a ppc LAPR hardware on beaker, search condition is : System/Model contains LPAR
And then schedule reservation and install rhel7.3.
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, and where to find the updated
files, follow the link below.
If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report.