Created attachment 1291655 [details] Logs Description of problem: [Host Qos] - vdsm failing to accept higher value then 2147mbps It is seems that when setting higher value then 2147mbps for host QoS, vdsm failing with error. For some reason it calculated as a negative numbers when setting 2148 and above. u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2', '-2146967296bit' 2017-06-25 10:28:00,693+0300 ERROR (jsonrpc/3) [jsonrpc.JsonRpcServer] Internal server error (__init__:577) Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/yajsonrpc/__init__.py", line 572, in _handle_request res = method(**params) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/rpc/Bridge.py", line 202, in _dynamicMethod result = fn(*methodArgs) File "/usr/share/vdsm/API.py", line 1575, in setupNetworks supervdsm.getProxy().setupNetworks(networks, bondings, options) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/supervdsm.py", line 53, in __call__ return callMethod() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/vdsm/supervdsm.py", line 51, in <lambda> **kwargs) File "<string>", line 2, in setupNetworks File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/multiprocessing/managers.py", line 773, in _callmethod raise convert_to_error(kind, result) TrafficControlException: (1, 'HFSC: Illegal "m2"\nHFSC: Illegal "rt"\n', ['/sbin/tc', 'class', 'add', 'dev', u'enp6s0', 'parent', '1389:', 'classid', '1389:1388', 'hfsc', u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2' , '-2146967296bit', u'ls', 'm2', '400bit']) 2017-06-25 10:28:00,737+0300 INFO (jsonrpc/3) [jsonrpc.JsonRpcServer] RPC call Host.setupNetworks failed (error -32603) in 9.05 seconds (__init__:539) 2017-06-25 10:39:38,661+03 ERROR [org.ovirt.vdsm.jsonrpc.client.JsonRpcClient] (ResponseWorker) [] Not able to update response for "a63e9aa9-5f8b-4b8b-a275-990265072789" 2017-06-25 10:39:38,677+03 ERROR [org.ovirt.engine.core.dal.dbbroker.auditloghandling.AuditLogDirector] (default task-5) [12aa8def-1ed4-4ea1-8362-e583d5c94400] EVENT_ID: VDS_BROKER_COMMAND_FAILURE(10,802), Correlation ID: null, Call Stack: null, Custom Event ID: -1, Message: VDSM pink-vds2.qa.lab.tlv.redhat.com command HostSetupNetworksVDS failed: (1, 'HFSC: Illegal "m2"\nHFSC: Illegal "rt"\n', ['/sbin/tc', 'class', 'add', 'dev', u'enp6s0', 'parent', '1389:', 'classid', '1389:1388', 'hfsc', u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ls', 'm2', '400bit']) 2017-06-25 10:39:38,678+03 ERROR [org.ovirt.engine.core.vdsbroker.vdsbroker.HostSetupNetworksVDSCommand] (default task-5) [12aa8def-1ed4-4ea1-8362-e583d5c94400] Error: VDSGenericException: VDSErrorException: Failed to HostSetupNetworksVDS, error = (1, 'HFSC: Illegal "m2"\nHFSC: Illegal "rt"\n', ['/sbin/tc', 'class', 'add', 'dev', u'enp6s0', 'parent', '1389:', 'classid', '1389:1388', 'hfsc', u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ls', 'm2', '400bit']), code = -32603 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): vdsm-4.19.20-1.el7ev.x86_64 4.1.3.5-0.1.el7 and master How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Run engine-config -s MaxAverageNetworkQoSValue=5000 2. systemctl restart ovirt-engine 3. Create new Host QoS entity with ls=100, rate limit=2148, committed rate=2148 and add to a network 4. Try to attach the network to the host 5. Attach different network and try to set override host QoS with the same values as step 3^^ 6. Override the network with ls=100, rate limit=2147, committed rate=2147 Actual results: step 4 - failed with error - u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2', '-2146967296bit' step 5 - failed with error - u'rt', 'm2', '-2146967296bit', u'ul', 'm2', '-2146967296bit' rt(rate limit) and ul(upper limit) are negative numbers. step - succeed Expected results: Should work
isn't this bug 1316568 ?
(In reply to Dan Kenigsberg from comment #1) > isn't this bug 1316568 ? Hmm, maybe it is..you tell me. I was almost sure that we already had such bug, but i couldn't find it, looks like you found it. If you believe it's the same bug, then feel free to close this one.
(In reply to Michael Burman from comment #2) > (In reply to Dan Kenigsberg from comment #1) > > isn't this bug 1316568 ? > > Hmm, maybe it is..you tell me. Well, a simple Google on the mysterious seemingly random number would bring you to: "32-bit limit is 2147483647. So it wraps around and becomes -2146967296." > I was almost sure that we already had such bug, but i couldn't find it, > looks like you found it. If you believe it's the same bug, then feel free to > close this one.
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1316568 ***