Bugzilla will be upgraded to version 5.0. The upgrade date is tentatively scheduled for 2 December 2018, pending final testing and feedback.
Bug 1324578 - Power state "suspended" of the terminated EC2 instance
Power state "suspended" of the terminated EC2 instance
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Providers (Show other bugs)
5.5.0
Unspecified Unspecified
medium Severity medium
: GA
: 5.6.0
Assigned To: Marcel Hild
Pavol Kotvan
ec2
: ZStream
Depends On:
Blocks: 1327726
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2016-04-06 13:07 EDT by Pavol Kotvan
Modified: 2016-11-29 05:03 EST (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 5.6.0.4
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1327726 (view as bug list)
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-06-29 11:47:46 EDT
Type: Bug
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)


External Trackers
Tracker ID Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2016:1348 normal SHIPPED_LIVE CFME 5.6.0 bug fixes and enhancement update 2016-06-29 14:50:04 EDT

  None (edit)
Comment 2 Greg Blomquist 2016-04-07 10:09:20 EDT
Marcel, this sounds like a dup possibly.  Can you validate that?
Comment 3 Marcel Hild 2016-04-07 11:11:23 EDT
When terminating an instance, we are setting the state to pending, which means suspended here:
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/blob/master/gems/manageiq-providers-amazon/app/models/manageiq/providers/amazon/cloud_manager/vm/operations.rb#L8

I would change that to "shutting-down", which is what it actually does.
Would this solve this?

Greg and Pavol, I'm not sure about the terminology about "archived" here. But from my understanding it makes sense to move terminated instances straight to the archived state.
Comment 4 Marcel Hild 2016-04-13 17:25:49 EDT
fixed upstream https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/7926
should we backport this to 5.5.z?
Comment 5 Dave Johnson 2016-04-15 12:03:14 EDT
Marcel, we should backport, yes please.
Comment 10 errata-xmlrpc 2016-06-29 11:47:46 EDT
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.

https://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2016:1348

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.