Bug 1371259 - Counter for multiple provisioning counts even failed provisions
Summary: Counter for multiple provisioning counts even failed provisions
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Provisioning
Version: 5.6.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: GA
: 5.7.0
Assignee: Greg McCullough
QA Contact: Matouš Mojžíš
URL:
Whiteboard: provision
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-08-29 17:21 UTC by Matouš Mojžíš
Modified: 2016-09-06 12:51 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-08-30 12:39:05 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Matouš Mojžíš 2016-08-29 17:21:39 UTC
Description of problem:


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.6.1.2

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Do a provision of for example three instances
2. Provision fails
3. Do that provision again, but without fails

Actual results:
Three instances that are successfully provided have name like $instance_0003 - $instance_0005.

Expected results:
When provision fails it shouldn't be counted and next provision number in name should start where this provision did.

Additional info:

Comment 2 Greg McCullough 2016-08-30 12:39:05 UTC
This feature is currently working as designed and there are no plans to change it at this time.

The implementation is designed to ensure unique values are provided for VM names as well as being efficient.  To provide this functionality only the last returned index value is stored for a given naming pattern.  When a new value is requested for a pattern the current value is incremented and returned.  This is performed while locking the row in the database to ensure sequential access to the next value.

There is no support for reusing values due to failed provision requests.


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