On Tuesday, September 26, 2017 3:26:44 AM EDT Tomas Jelinek wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:17 AM, Miroslava Voglova <mvoglova@redhat.com>
>
> wrote:
> > From 4.0 architecture family was renamed in script
> > 04_00_0080_rename_architecture_family. So 'HotPlugCpuSupported', No its an old database though from pre 4.0 times. These VMs have never been
> > 'HotUnplugCpuSupported', '
> > HotPlugMemorySupported', 'HotUnplugMemorySupported',
> > 'IsMigrationSupported', 'IsMemorySnapshotSupported' and
> > 'IsSuspendSupported' are all in db with x86 not x86_64. In my point of
> > view nothing wrong with that particular line in [1].
> >
> > Could be that somewhere in code is not used architecture family, but host
> > architecture, when asked for value of this ConfigValues. But that would
> > throw exception even before my patch, because '{"x86:"true","ppc":"true"}'
> > was default value for HotPlugMemorySupported.
>
> I see a code path where the cluster arch can be set to x86_64 - it is
> always executed for external VMs (imported from external provider or
> unmanaged). It does not happen all the time, it is only a fallback if the
> arch type is not known/reported etc.
>
> @Alexander: by any chance, was this VM an unmanaged one? Or imported? In
> logs you should find something like:
> "Illegal architecture type: {}, replacing with x86_64" or "null
> architecture type, replacing with x86_64, {}".
>
> Also, if you create a new VM, can you start it?
>
unmanaged or imported from external providers. I did not see that in the log,
I had to manuall step through the code to end up in the right place that
causes the NPE. Like I said before line 23 in FeatureSupported.java is the
culprit IMO. It does:
String value = archOptions.get(arch.name());
arch is ArchitectureType, and arch.name returns x86_64, and if I understand
right they should have done arch.getFamily().name() which does happen 2 lines
below it. Honestly I don't understand how any VMs are able to run with the
code like that since they all check to see if you can do memory hot plug
before starting, and that check runs through this piece of code, which based
on the contents of [1] should return an npe since the database should not
contain the x86_64 entries.
> > [1]
> > *https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/81464/7/packaging/dbscripts/ upgrade/pre_upg
> > rade/0000_config.sql
> > <https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/81464/7/packaging/dbscripts/ upgrade/pre_upg
> > rade/0000_config.sql>*
> >
> > On Tue, Sep 26, 2017 at 9:00 AM, Tomas Jelinek <tjelinek@redhat.com>
> >
> > wrote:
> >> On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 10:08 PM, Roy Golan <rgolan@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 at 22:52 Alexander Wels <awels@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, September 25, 2017 3:50:56 PM EDT Roy Golan wrote:
> >>>> > So somewhere in the code somebody used the Arch and not the family.
> >>>>
> >>>> See the
> >>>>
> >>>> > enum getFamily() method
> >>>>
> >>>> Yep, in particular line 23 of FeatureSupported.java.
> >>>>
> >>>> I meant the caller of the method on this line. Do you have it in the
> >>>
> >>> trace so we can see who passed x86_64 as arch ?
> >>>
> >>> > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 at 22:31 Alexander Wels <awels@redhat.com> wrote:
> >>>> > > On Monday, September 25, 2017 3:24:14 PM EDT Roy Golan wrote:
> >>>> > > > what JRE are you using? any change with that?
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > So I just figured out the problem, and its really strange. It has
> >>>>
> >>>> nothing
> >>>>
> >>>> > > to
> >>>> > > do with the SSL as the stack trace is mentioning. I manually
> >>>> > > stepped
> >>>> > > through
> >>>> > > the code to see what was going on and it turns out it is failing in
> >>>> > > FeatureSupported.java in supportedInConfig call from hotPlugMemory.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > The Config.<Map>getValue(feature, version.getValue()) (version is
> >>>>
> >>>> 4.2) is
> >>>>
> >>>> > > returning a map containing x86=true and ppc=true. But then it
> >>>>
> >>>> compares
> >>>>
> >>>> > > this to
> >>>> > > ArchitectureType.name() it returns null, because .name() return
> >>>>
> >>>> x86_64. No
> >>>>
> >>>> > > it
> >>>> > > appears that sometime during the last few months we dropped the _64
> >>>>
> >>>> in the
> >>>>
> >>>> > > ArchitectureType, or at least in the database.
> >>
> >> It looks a lot like introduced here: https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/81464/
> >>
> >> @Mirka: what you think?
> >>
> >>>> > > As soon as I added a vdc_options tha contains x86_64 value for that
> >>>>
> >>>> key it
> >>>>
> >>>> > > started working. Now I have checked with Greg who has a fresh
> >>>>
> >>>> database
> >>>>
> >>>> > > that he
> >>>> > > can start VMs no problem, and his database contains x86 instead of
> >>>>
> >>>> x86_64.
> >>>>
> >>>> > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 at 21:12 Alexander Wels <awels@redhat.com>
> >>>>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>> > > > > Hi guys,
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > I see to be having an issue starting VMs with the latest
> >>>> > > > > master.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > Whenever
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > I
> >>>> > > > > try to start a VM I get null pointer exception. And the VM
> >>>>
> >>>> doesn't
> >>>>
> >>>> > > start.
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > I
> >>>> > > > > have debugged the engine, and it appears that the null pointer
> >>>>
> >>>> happens
> >>>>
> >>>> > > > > after
> >>>> > > > > the engine tries to connect to the host. In the stack trace I
> >>>>
> >>>> see
> >>>>
> >>>> > > > > SSLPeerUnverifiedException, so it appears something went wrong
> >>>>
> >>>> with a
> >>>>
> >>>> > > > > certificate somewhere.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > I have put my hosts in maintaince and re-enrolled the
> >>>>
> >>>> certificate, but
> >>>>
> >>>> > > > > that
> >>>> > > > > doesn't appear to be helping at all. Any other place I need to
> >>>>
> >>>> look at
> >>>>
> >>>> > > to
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > make
> >>>> > > > > sure the engine can talk to the hosts? This appears to have
> >>>>
> >>>> started
> >>>>
> >>>> > > after
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > I
> >>>> > > > > upgraded Wildfly to 11, so it is possible it has something to
> >>>>
> >>>> do with
> >>>>
> >>>> > > that
> >>>> > >
> >>>> > > > > as
> >>>> > > > > well.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Any help figuring this out would be appreciated.
> >>>> > > > >
> >>>> > > > > Alexander
> >>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > > > > Devel mailing list
> >>>> > > > > Devel@ovirt.org
> >>>> > > > > http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Devel mailing list
> >>> Devel@ovirt.org
> >>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel