Bug 1404247 - [Docs][Admin] Unexpected scheduling policy parameters
Summary: [Docs][Admin] Unexpected scheduling policy parameters
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Documentation
Version: 4.0.7
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ovirt-4.1.3
: ---
Assignee: Megan Lewis
QA Contact: Byron Gravenorst
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1404762
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-12-13 13:12 UTC by Artyom
Modified: 2019-05-07 12:56 UTC (History)
9 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2017-06-30 03:43:38 UTC
oVirt Team: Docs
Target Upstream Version:


Attachments (Terms of Use)
screenshot (34.62 KB, image/png)
2016-12-13 13:12 UTC, Artyom
no flags Details
None policy configuration (50.88 KB, image/png)
2016-12-14 12:09 UTC, Martin Sivák
no flags Details

Description Artyom 2016-12-13 13:12:50 UTC
Created attachment 1231194 [details]
screenshot

Description of problem:
Some scheduling policies have redundant parameters
none - HighUtiliztion, CpuOverCommitmentDuration
vm_evenly_distributed - HighUtiliztion, CpuOverCommitmentDuration

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
ovirt-engine-4.1.0-0.2.master.20161212172238.gitea103bd.el7.centos.noarch

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Open update cluster dialog
2. Change cluster scheduling policy to none
3.

Actual results:
You can see redundant parameters

Expected results:
Policy does not have redundant parameters

Additional info:
See screenshot

Comment 1 Martin Sivák 2016-12-14 12:09:36 UTC
Created attachment 1231642 [details]
None policy configuration

The none policy disables load balancing, but the other filters (especially CPU and CPUOverloaded) still use those values during manual VM starts and migrations.

Comment 2 Martin Sivák 2016-12-14 15:28:53 UTC
We checked the docs about this and the CPUOverloaded unit is properly present according to docs:

Additional virtual machines attached to a host will not start if that host has reached the defined high utilization value.

There is a small documentation bug here though, the above sentence is present for power saving and equally balanced policies:

Table 5.7 in https://access.redhat.com/documentation/en/red-hat-virtualization/4.0/single/administration-guide/

But there is nothing like that mentioned for the other policies. But the "none" policy is basically identical to equally balanced with no automatic load balancing (manual VM starts and migrations still obey the rules though). The same applies to the VM count based policy. All standard filters apply.

Comment 3 Yaniv Lavi 2016-12-20 12:22:42 UTC
Can you please describe exactly what you want changed and why? 
Comment #2 is not clear.

Comment 4 Martin Sivák 2016-12-20 13:07:37 UTC
I think we just need to update the documentation to properly state that no VMs will be started on a host that is in CPU overloaded condition (the default is load of more than 80% for 5 minutes).

The rule is already expressed in the docs, but in a very confusing and out of date way by mentioning Maximum Service Level, which has not been called like that since 3.1 or 3.2. The today's equivalent is expressed using HighUtilization and CpuOverCommitDurationMinutes parameters.

Comment 5 Lucy Bopf 2017-04-27 06:52:26 UTC
Assigning to Megan.

Megan, this bug may have been already covered by your recent updates to the scheduling policy content.

Comment 15 Martin Sivák 2017-06-02 14:10:57 UTC
2.2.1 I would maybe point out that the 80%/5 minutes rule is the default and can be changed (per cluster even)

5.7. Load Balancing Policy: InClusterUpgrade - Please point out very visibly that this is related to the major version upgrade only. It was meant to be used for RHEL 6 to RHEL 7 migration. It does not have any effect in 4.1 and should not be used (we are actually discussing hiding or removing it on the engineering side of the house)

Comment 18 Martin Sivák 2017-06-19 08:39:04 UTC
Hi Megan,

both changes look great and are exactly what was needed. I do not remember seeing anything else so I think we are good.

Thanks.

Comment 21 Byron Gravenorst 2017-06-28 03:49:45 UTC
Reviewed and verified.


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