Description of problem: * Manager was updated from 4.2 to 4.3 * After the post upgrade reboot, there are ovirt_engine_history proceses running for a long time that consume 98% of CPU. Eg: ~~~ 14424 12967 postgres postgres 14424 1 08:08 postmaster 10:devices:/system.slice/rh-postgresql10-postgresql.service,1:name=systemd:/system.slice/rh-postgresql10-postgresql.service ~~~ When I look at the query output provided I see: ~~~ 14424 | ovirt_engine_history | ovirt_engine_history | SELECT name, AVG(total) AS total, AVG(used) AS used, MAX(previous_used) AS pre vious_used, MAX(previous_total) AS previous_total, MAX(vm_disk_usage_percent) AS usage_percent FROM (SELECT history_datetime, vms.vm_ name AS name, SUM(vm_disk_size_mb) AS total, SUM(vm_disk_actual_size_mb) AS used, COALESCE(MAX(previous_actual_size), 0) AS previous_ used, COALESCE(MAX(previous_total_size), 0) AS previous_total, CASE WHEN MAX(vm_disk_size_mb) = 0 THEN 0 ELSE (CAST(MAX(vm_disk_actua l_size_mb) AS DECIMAL)/ MAX(vm_disk_size_mb) * 100) END AS vm_disk_usage_percent FROM v4_2_statistics_vms_disks_resources_usage_sampl es samples INNER JOIN v4_2_latest_configuration_vms_devices devices ON devices.device_id = vm_disk_id INNER JOIN v4_2_latest_configur ation_vms vms ON vms.vm_id = devices.vm_id INNER JOIN v4_2_latest_configuration_vms_disks disks ON disks.vm_disk_id = samples.vm_disk _id LEFT OUTER JOIN (SELECT vm_name, AVG(previous_actual_size) AS previous_actual_size, AVG(previous_total_size) AS previous_total_si ze FROM (SELEC ~~~ * The process 14424 terminated, but there is another one with the same behavior: ~~~ postgres 2808 93.7 0.0 269576 45560 ? Rs 13:48 142:14 postgres: ovirt_engine_history ovirt_engine_history 127.0.0.1(38350) SELECT ~~~ Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ~~~ rhvm-4.3.3.7-0.1.el7.noarch Wed Jun 12 15:35:33 2019 ovirt-engine-dwh-4.3.0-1.el7ev.noarch Wed Jun 12 15:36:02 2019 ~~~ How reproducible: Don't know Steps to Reproduce: 1. 2. 3. Actual results: Expected results: No dwh processes using 98% CPU. Additional info:
This might be a duplicate of bug 1721481.
(In reply to Yedidyah Bar David from comment #3) > This might be a duplicate of bug 1721481. Roy, since you're working on bug #1721481 can you confirm this is a duplicate?
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 1721481 ***