Bug 1376289 - [Docs] All hosts filtered out when memory underutilized parameter left out
Summary: [Docs] All hosts filtered out when memory underutilized parameter left out
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1360696
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Documentation
Version: 4.0.0
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ovirt-4.0.7
: ---
Assignee: rhev-docs@redhat.com
QA Contact: rhev-docs@redhat.com
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1354281 1359767
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-09-15 04:23 UTC by Tahlia Richardson
Modified: 2019-05-07 13:14 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-02-01 03:04:18 UTC
oVirt Team: Docs
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tahlia Richardson 2016-09-15 04:23:07 UTC
The doc text from the following bug has a documentation request:  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354281

"Cause:
Setting only one of the thresholds for power saving/evenly distributed memory based balancing (high or low) might lead to unexpected results.

Specific to this bug-
In power saving load balancing the threshold for memory over utilized hosts is set with a value and the threshold for memory under utilized host is undefined thus getting a default value of 0.

Consequence:
All hosts are considered as under utilized hosts and are chosen as sources for migration.
No host is chosen as a destination for migration.

Fix:
1.Documentation fix is needed, add the following limitation:

"Setting only one of the thresholds in memory based balancing (high or low) might lead to unexpected results."

2.When the threshold for memory under utilized host is undefined - it gets a default value of Long.MAX

Result:
1.After the documentation fix users will be guided not to choose only one of the memory thresholds for power saving / evenly distributed load balancing (preventing unwanted behaviour)

2.When in power saving load balancing the threshold for memory over utilized hosts is set with a value and the threshold for memory under utilized host is undefined:
- only over utilized hosts will be selected as sources for migration.
- destination hosts will be hosts that are not over utilized"


Comments in the bug are also quite detailed. 

Should just require adding a note to https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-virtualization/4.0/single/administration-guide/#Configuring_scheduling_policy and maybe the settings table.

Comment 1 Megan Lewis 2016-09-21 00:54:47 UTC
A 3.6 doc text bug also requests the same changes: 
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359767

This bug is a clone of the bug mentioned above. 

"Cause: 
Setting only one of the thresholds for power saving/evenly distributed memory based balancing (high or low) might lead to unexpected results.

Specific to this bug- 
In power saving load balancing the threshold for memory over utilized hosts is set with a value and the threshold for memory under utilized host is undefined thus getting a default value of 0. 

Consequence: 
All hosts are considered as under utilized hosts and are chosen as sources for migration.
No host is chosen as a destination for migration.

Fix:
1.Documentation fix is needed, add the following limitation:

"Setting only one of the thresholds in memory based balancing (high or low) might lead to unexpected results."

2.When the threshold for memory under utilized host is   undefined - it gets a default value of Long.MAX

Result: 
1.After the documentation fix users will be guided not to choose only one of the memory thresholds for power saving / evenly distributed load balancing (preventing unwanted behaviour)

2.When in power saving load balancing the threshold for memory over utilized hosts is set with a value and the threshold for memory under utilized host is undefined:
- only over utilized hosts will be selected as sources for migration.
- destination hosts will be hosts that are not over utilized"

Comment 2 Lucy Bopf 2017-01-31 08:40:10 UTC
Tahlia, I think the same change is requested in bug 1360696. Can you confirm, and close this one as a duplicate if bug 1360696 covers the same change?

Comment 3 Tahlia Richardson 2017-02-01 03:04:18 UTC
Yes, I think this is same, or at least a similar, request. They both reference the same engineering bug. I'll include the doc text from this bug description as a comment in the other bug, and close this one as a duplicate.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1360696 ***


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