Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1461560
Provisioning to RHV 4.1 Max Memory Size Needs to be Adjusted as Necesary
Last modified: 2017-08-10 08:16:42 EDT
Description of problem: When provisioning to RHV 4.1, templates have a new Max Memory Size feature which is normally 4 times the assigned memory. If the VM is provisioned with memory size greater than that, the provision will fail unable to resize the memory. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 5.7.2 How reproducible: Always. Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create a template with 1 GB RAM and 4 GB Max Memory. 2. Provision from that template and set memory to greater than 4 GB. Actual results: Provision fails. Expected results: CloudForms should adjust the Max Memory size to at least the requested memory size, perhaps 4 times. Additional info: VM Provision Error: [cfme01] VM [testvm1] Step [CheckProvisioned] Status [[Ovirt::Error]: [Cannot edit VM. Memory size (16384MB) cannot exceed maximum memory size (4096MB).]] Message [[Ovirt::Error]: [Cannot edit VM. Memory size (16384MB) cannot exceed maximum memory size (4096MB).]]
Another situation we have encountered I will add... If you create a template with 1 GB RAM and 64 GB MAX RAM, and you provision it for 16 GB RAM, the template gets copied as 1 GB RAM and 4 GB MAX RAM, then when CloudForms tries to resize the template it fails. We are working around this right now by setting the memory in the template as 16 GB RAM causing the MAX RAM to be set at 64 Gb during the copy giving us an adequate setting. Fortunately, the reduction of memory from the template now works where it didn't used to, so we are able to shrink the 16 GB RAM to 1 GB and end up with 1 GB RAM and 64 GB MAX RAM, which is an acceptable work around.
Please assess the impact of this issue and update the severity accordingly. Please refer to https://bugzilla.redhat.com/page.cgi?id=fields.html#bug_severity for a reminder on each severity's definition. If it's something like a tracker bug where it doesn't matter, please set it to Low/Low.
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-ovirt/pull/61
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15591
New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-ovirt/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq-providers-ovirt/commit/51d4cd39b032ba90a5ad42991262ae31e1ccec2d commit 51d4cd39b032ba90a5ad42991262ae31e1ccec2d Author: Moti Asayag <masayag@redhat.com> AuthorDate: Sun Jul 16 21:16:58 2017 +0300 Commit: Moti Asayag <masayag@redhat.com> CommitDate: Tue Jul 18 14:56:43 2017 +0300 Support memory limit Memory limit feature was introduced in RHV 4.1. It is already supported by manageiq as part of the vm provision process. The patch adds support for total memory for providers of version 4.1 and above. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1461560 .../manageiq/providers/redhat/infra_manager.rb | 5 ++++ .../infra_manager/ovirt_services/strategies/v3.rb | 5 ++++ .../infra_manager/ovirt_services/strategies/v4.rb | 5 ++-- .../provision/configuration/container.rb | 9 ++++--- .../redhat/infra_manager/provision_workflow.rb | 26 +++++++++++++++++++ .../refresh/parse/strategies/vm_inventory.rb | 7 ++++- .../providers/redhat/infra_manager_spec.rb | 30 ++++++++++++++++++++++ 7 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
New commit detected on ManageIQ/manageiq/master: https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/commit/35d118bb8d7fe8aa7857f74de593f75d755af4e3 commit 35d118bb8d7fe8aa7857f74de593f75d755af4e3 Author: Moti Asayag <masayag@redhat.com> AuthorDate: Sun Jul 16 15:09:14 2017 +0300 Commit: Moti Asayag <masayag@redhat.com> CommitDate: Tue Jul 25 09:03:17 2017 +0300 Support memory limit for RHV RHV 4.1 and above supports memory limit. This option is being exposed in the UI under the 'Hardware' section. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1461560 .../miq_dialogs/miq_provision_redhat_dialogs_template.yaml | 8 ++++++++ 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+)
https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15571
(In reply to CFME Bot from comment #11) > https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15571 Moti - is this pull request related? Should this move to POST (and target 5.9.0?)
(In reply to Oved Ourfali from comment #12) > (In reply to CFME Bot from comment #11) > > https://github.com/ManageIQ/manageiq/pull/15571 > > Moti - is this pull request related? > Should this move to POST (and target 5.9.0?) No. That PR isn't related to this bug.