Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 848002

Summary: Wrong error message in Events when host cpu level is too low
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager Reporter: Ayal Baron <abaron>
Component: ovirt-engineAssignee: Oved Ourfali <oourfali>
Status: CLOSED INSUFFICIENT_DATA QA Contact:
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 3.1.0CC: dyasny, hateya, iheim, knesenko, lpeer, Rhev-m-bugs, sgrinber, yeylon, ykaul
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: infra
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-08-15 10:04:47 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: Infra RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Attachments:
Description Flags
Engine log none

Description Ayal Baron 2012-08-14 09:53:56 UTC
Created attachment 604251 [details]
Engine log

Description of problem:
When adding first data domain to pool host with cpu level which is too low will move to non-operational and error in events tab states that host failed to connect to storage pool.
This is totally misleading as the problem is the mismatch between host and cluster cpu levels.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):


How reproducible:
100%

Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create DC
2. Create Cluster with default cpu level
3. Add host to cluster with lower cpu level than cluster
4. Add first data storage domain to DC
Actual results:
Host moves to non-operational and error is that host failed to connect to storage pool

Expected results:
Host should move to non-operational immediately when adding to cluster and event message should state the correct reason.


Additional info:

Comment 1 Kiril Nesenko 2012-08-14 10:26:12 UTC
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
1279ea26193ca98a1f196b4be6e651f41fcee4e5

Comment 3 Oved Ourfali 2012-08-15 06:37:34 UTC
Ayal,
I tried to reproduce using the steps above, and when I added the host to the cluster, the host immediately moved to non-operational, with the error: "Host CPU type is not compatible with Cluster Properties.".

I tried it twice, and got the same result. Also tried it once with an existing DC with storage domains, and also got the same result.

You said it always reproduces. Can you show me how to reproduce it?

Comment 5 Itamar Heim 2012-08-15 10:04:47 UTC
host may have failed on the storage issue, before the cpu compat issue?
closing till repro is available

Comment 6 Ayal Baron 2012-08-17 21:56:37 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> host may have failed on the storage issue, before the cpu compat issue?
> closing till repro is available

No, changing cluster compat solved it immediately.
In addition, I created the storage domain using the same host and immediately proceeded to attaching it.  Host should not have been available for use at all at least for attach flow if not for create as well.
Clearly either there was something that caused it to be in 'up' despite the mismatch with cluster or it could be that it wasn't up but I was still able to use it to create and attach the domain?

Kiril, you immediately knew what the problem was, I'm guessing you've seen this before?

Comment 7 Haim 2012-08-19 06:25:58 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> (In reply to comment #5)
> > host may have failed on the storage issue, before the cpu compat issue?
> > closing till repro is available
> 
> No, changing cluster compat solved it immediately.
> In addition, I created the storage domain using the same host and
> immediately proceeded to attaching it.  Host should not have been available
> for use at all at least for attach flow if not for create as well.
> Clearly either there was something that caused it to be in 'up' despite the
> mismatch with cluster or it could be that it wasn't up but I was still able
> to use it to create and attach the domain?
> 
> Kiril, you immediately knew what the problem was, I'm guessing you've seen
> this before?

correct, and this issues is described in 841148.