Bug 826488 - Require system with at least 65 535 MB RAM but get system with 33792 MB RAM
Summary: Require system with at least 65 535 MB RAM but get system with 33792 MB RAM
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NOTABUG
Alias: None
Product: Beaker
Classification: Retired
Component: scheduler
Version: 0.8
Hardware: Unspecified
OS: Unspecified
unspecified
unspecified
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nick Coghlan
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard: MC
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2012-05-30 10:34 UTC by Ľuboš Kardoš
Modified: 2016-08-08 05:04 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-11-07 06:19:39 UTC
Embargoed:


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Ľuboš Kardoš 2012-05-30 10:34:27 UTC
Description of problem:
For my test I require a system with at least 65 535 MB RAM. For this I use following xml:
...
<hostRequires>
    <and>
        <key_value key="MEMORY" op="&gt;" value="65535"/>
    </and>
    <system_type value="Machine"/>
</hostRequires>
...
But the system at which is the test executed has only 33792 MB.

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create a job that requires a system with at least 65 535 MB RAM. Use mentioned xml or clone my recipe: https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510124#task6010064
  
Actual results:
The test is exectued at a system that does not follow requirements.

Expected results:
The test should be executed at a system that follows requirements.

Additional info:
Recipes in which systems does not follows requirements:
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510124#task6010064
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510129#task6010076
https://beaker.engineering.redhat.com/recipes/510133#task6010084

Comment 1 Bill Peck 2012-05-30 13:00:24 UTC
key_value for memory is left over from legacy rhts..  Can you try the following xml instead?

<memory op="&gt;" value="65535"/>

Comment 2 Nick Coghlan 2012-10-17 04:36:12 UTC
Bulk reassignment of issues as Bill has moved to another team.

Comment 3 Nick Coghlan 2012-11-07 06:19:39 UTC
As Bill noted, this kind of oddity is part of why the MEMORY key value entry has been replaced with the memory element in the XML format. However, the old mechanism will remain in place for backwards compatibility (despite its issues).


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