Error: Adding new Host to ovirt-engine
by Ahmad Khiet
Hi,
Can't add new host to ovirt engine, because the following error:
2019-06-12 12:23:09,664 p=4134 u=engine | TASK [ovirt-host-deploy-facts :
Set facts] *************************************
2019-06-12 12:23:09,684 p=4134 u=engine | ok: [10.35.1.17] => {
"ansible_facts": {
"ansible_python_interpreter": "/usr/bin/python2",
"host_deploy_vdsm_version": "4.40.0"
},
"changed": false
}
2019-06-12 12:23:09,697 p=4134 u=engine | TASK [ovirt-provider-ovn-driver
: Install ovs] *********************************
2019-06-12 12:23:09,726 p=4134 u=engine | fatal: [10.35.1.17]: FAILED! =>
{}
MSG:
The conditional check 'cluster_switch == "ovs" or (ovn_central is defined
and ovn_central | ipaddr and ovn_engine_cluster_version is
version_compare('4.2', '>='))' failed. The error was: The ipaddr filter
requires python's netaddr be installed on the ansible controller
The error appears to be in
'/home/engine/apps/engine/share/ovirt-engine/playbooks/roles/ovirt-provider-ovn-driver/tasks/configure.yml':
line 3, column 5, but may
be elsewhere in the file depending on the exact syntax problem.
The offending line appears to be:
- block:
- name: Install ovs
^ here
2019-06-12 12:23:09,728 p=4134 u=engine | PLAY RECAP
*********************************************************************
2019-06-12 12:23:09,728 p=4134 u=engine | 10.35.1.17 :
ok=3 changed=0 unreachable=0 failed=1 skipped=0 rescued=0
ignored=0
whats missing!?
Thanks
--
Ahmad Khiet
Red Hat <https://www.redhat.com/>
akhiet(a)redhat.com
M: +972-54-6225629
<https://red.ht/sig>
1 year, 4 months
Merge rights changes in the oVirt Engine project
by Tal Nisan
Hi everyone,
As you probably know we are now in a mode in which we develop our next
zstream version on the master branch as opposed to how we worked before
where the master version was dedicated for the next major version. This
makes the rapid changes in master to be delivered to customers in a much
higher cadence thus affecting stability.
Due to that we think it's best that from now on merges in the master branch
will be done only by stable branch maintainers after inspecting those
closely.
What you need to do in order to get your patch merged:
- Have it pass Jenkins
- Have it get code review +2
- Have it mark verified +1
- It's always encourage to have it tested by OST, for bigger changes it's a
must
Once you have all those covered, please add me as a reviewer and I'll
examine it and merge if everything seems right, if I haven't done it in a
timely manner feel free to ping me.
3 years, 8 months
Error Java SDK Issue??
by Geschwentner, Patrick
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen!
I am currently working with the java-sdk and I encountered a problem.
If I would like to retrieve the disk details, I get the following error:
Disk currDisk = ovirtConnection.followLink(diskAttachment.disk());
The Error is occurring in this line:
[cid:image001.png@01D44537.AF127FD0]
The getResponst looks quiet ok. (I inspected: [cid:image002.png@01D44537.AF127FD0] and it looks ok).
Error:
wrong number of arguments
The code is quiet similar to what you published on github (https://github.com/oVirt/ovirt-engine-sdk-java/blob/master/sdk/src/test/j... ).
Can you confirm the defect?
Best regards
Patrick
3 years, 8 months
CentOS Stream support
by Michal Skrivanek
Hi all,
we would like to ask about interest in community about oVirt moving to CentOS Stream.
There were some requests before but it’s hard to see how many people would really like to see that.
With CentOS releases lagging behind RHEL for months it’s interesting to consider moving to CentOS Stream as it is much more up to date and allows us to fix bugs faster, with less workarounds and overhead for maintaining old code. E.g. our current integration tests do not really pass on CentOS 8.1 and we can’t really do much about that other than wait for more up to date packages. It would also bring us closer to make oVirt run smoothly on RHEL as that is also much closer to Stream than it is to outdated CentOS.
So..would you like us to support CentOS Stream?
We don’t really have capacity to run 3 different platforms, would you still want oVirt to support CentOS Stream if it means “less support” for regular CentOS?
There are some concerns about Stream being a bit less stable, do you share those concerns?
Thank you for your comments,
michal
3 years, 10 months
planned Jenkins restart
by Evgheni Dereveanchin
Hi everyone,
I'll be performing a planned Jenkins restart within the next hour.
No new CI jobs will be scheduled during this maintenance period.
I will inform you once it is back online.
--
Regards,
Evgheni Dereveanchin
4 years
device compatibility interface for live migration with assigned devices
by Yan Zhao
hi folks,
we are defining a device migration compatibility interface that helps upper
layer stack like openstack/ovirt/libvirt to check if two devices are
live migration compatible.
The "devices" here could be MDEVs, physical devices, or hybrid of the two.
e.g. we could use it to check whether
- a src MDEV can migrate to a target MDEV,
- a src VF in SRIOV can migrate to a target VF in SRIOV,
- a src MDEV can migration to a target VF in SRIOV.
(e.g. SIOV/SRIOV backward compatibility case)
The upper layer stack could use this interface as the last step to check
if one device is able to migrate to another device before triggering a real
live migration procedure.
we are not sure if this interface is of value or help to you. please don't
hesitate to drop your valuable comments.
(1) interface definition
The interface is defined in below way:
__ userspace
/\ \
/ \write
/ read \
________/__________ ___\|/_____________
| migration_version | | migration_version |-->check migration
--------------------- --------------------- compatibility
device A device B
a device attribute named migration_version is defined under each device's
sysfs node. e.g. (/sys/bus/pci/devices/0000\:00\:02.0/$mdev_UUID/migration_version).
userspace tools read the migration_version as a string from the source device,
and write it to the migration_version sysfs attribute in the target device.
The userspace should treat ANY of below conditions as two devices not compatible:
- any one of the two devices does not have a migration_version attribute
- error when reading from migration_version attribute of one device
- error when writing migration_version string of one device to
migration_version attribute of the other device
The string read from migration_version attribute is defined by device vendor
driver and is completely opaque to the userspace.
for a Intel vGPU, string format can be defined like
"parent device PCI ID" + "version of gvt driver" + "mdev type" + "aggregator count".
for an NVMe VF connecting to a remote storage. it could be
"PCI ID" + "driver version" + "configured remote storage URL"
for a QAT VF, it may be
"PCI ID" + "driver version" + "supported encryption set".
(to avoid namespace confliction from each vendor, we may prefix a driver name to
each migration_version string. e.g. i915-v1-8086-591d-i915-GVTg_V5_8-1)
(2) backgrounds
The reason we hope the migration_version string is opaque to the userspace
is that it is hard to generalize standard comparing fields and comparing
methods for different devices from different vendors.
Though userspace now could still do a simple string compare to check if
two devices are compatible, and result should also be right, it's still
too limited as it excludes the possible candidate whose migration_version
string fails to be equal.
e.g. an MDEV with mdev_type_1, aggregator count 3 is probably compatible
with another MDEV with mdev_type_3, aggregator count 1, even their
migration_version strings are not equal.
(assumed mdev_type_3 is of 3 times equal resources of mdev_type_1).
besides that, driver version + configured resources are all elements demanding
to take into account.
So, we hope leaving the freedom to vendor driver and let it make the final decision
in a simple reading from source side and writing for test in the target side way.
we then think the device compatibility issues for live migration with assigned
devices can be divided into two steps:
a. management tools filter out possible migration target devices.
Tags could be created according to info from product specification.
we think openstack/ovirt may have vendor proprietary components to create
those customized tags for each product from each vendor.
e.g.
for Intel vGPU, with a vGPU(a MDEV device) in source side, the tags to
search target vGPU are like:
a tag for compatible parent PCI IDs,
a tag for a range of gvt driver versions,
a tag for a range of mdev type + aggregator count
for NVMe VF, the tags to search target VF may be like:
a tag for compatible PCI IDs,
a tag for a range of driver versions,
a tag for URL of configured remote storage.
b. with the output from step a, openstack/ovirt/libvirt could use our proposed
device migration compatibility interface to make sure the two devices are
indeed live migration compatible before launching the real live migration
process to start stream copying, src device stopping and target device
resuming.
It is supposed that this step would not bring any performance penalty as
-in kernel it's just a simple string decoding and comparing
-in openstack/ovirt, it could be done by extending current function
check_can_live_migrate_destination, along side claiming target resources.[1]
[1] https://specs.openstack.org/openstack/nova-specs/specs/stein/approved/lib...
Thanks
Yan
4 years, 3 months
[ARM64] Possiblity to support oVirt on ARM64
by Zhenyu Zheng
Hi oVirt,
We are currently trying to make oVirt work on ARM64 platform, since I'm
quite new to oVirt community, I'm wondering what is the current status
about ARM64 support in the oVirt upstream, as I saw the oVirt Wikipedia
page mentioned there is an ongoing efforts to support ARM platform. We have
a small team here and we are willing to also help to make this work.
Thanks alot,
Zhenyu Zheng
4 years, 3 months
