[ovirt-devel] [ OST Failure Report ] [ oVirt Master ] [ bootstrap.verify_add_hosts ] [ 18/10/17 ]

[Martin Perina]

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:58 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 10:29 AM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Dan Kenigsberg <danken at redhat.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 2:40 PM, Daniel Belenky <dbelenky at redhat.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi all,
> >>>
> >>> The following test is failing: 002_bootstrap.verify_add_hosts
> >>> All logs from failing job
> >>> Only 2 engine patches participated in the test, so the suspected
> patches
> >>> are:
> >>>
> >>> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/82542/2
> >>> https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/82545/3
> >>>
> >>> Due to the fact that when this error first introduced we had another
> >>> error, the CI can't automatically detect the specific patch.
> >>>
> >>> Error snippet from logs: ovirt-host-deploy-ansible log (Full log)
> >>>
> >>> TASK [ovirt-host-deploy-firewalld : Enable firewalld rules]
> >>> ********************
> >>> failed: [lago-basic-suite-master-host-0] (item={u'service':
> >>> u'glusterfs'}) => {"changed": false, "failed": true, "item":
> {"service":
> >>> "glusterfs"}, "msg": "ERROR: Exception caught:
> >>> org.fedoraproject.FirewallD1.Exception: INVALID_SERVICE: 'glusterfs'
> not
> >>> among existing services Permanent and Non-Permanent(immediate)
> operation,
> >>> Services are defined by port/tcp relationship and named as they are in
> >>> /etc/services (on most systems)"}
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Error from HOST 0 firewalld log:
> >>> lago-basic-suite-master-host-0/_var_log/firewalld/ (Full log)
> >>>
> >>> 2017-10-15 16:51:24 ERROR: INVALID_SERVICE: 'glusterfs' not among
> >>> existing services
> >>
> >>
> >> Ondra, would such an error propagate through the playbook to Engine and
> >> fail the add-host flow? (I think it should!)
> >
> >
> > We didn't do that so far, because of EL 7.3
> > . We need firewalld from 7.4 to have all available services in place (I
> > don't remember but I think imageio service was the one delivered only in
> > firewalld from 7.4). So  up until now we ingore non-existent firewalld
> > service, but if needed we can turn this on and fail host deploy.
>
> Ok, so for now your "luckily" off the hook and not the reason of failure.
>
> >>
> >>
> >> Do you know which package provide the glusterfs firewalld service, and
> why
> >> it is missing from the host?
> >
> >
> > So we have used 'glusterfs' firewalld service per Sahina recommendation,
> > which is included in glusterfs-server package from version 3.7.6 [1]. But
> > this package is not installed when installing packages for cluster with
> > gluster capabilities enabled. So now I'm confused: don't we need
> > glusterfs-server package? If not and we need those ports open because
> they
> > are used by services from different already installed glusterfs packages,
> > shouldn't the firewalld configuration be moved from glusterfs-server to
> > glusterfs package?
>
> glusterfs-cli.rpm is required to consume gluster storage (virt use
> case), but I don't recall that it needs open ports.
>

​It was there even for IPTables, if gluster support is enabled on cluster,
then gluster specific ports were enabled even with IPTables. FirewallD
feature continues to use that.
​


> glusterfs-server.rpm is required to provide gluster storage (gluster use
> case).
> If I recall correctly, firewalld feature has differentiated between
> the two; opening needed ports only when relevant.
>

​Right, but if gluster services are configured for firewalld it means that
the host has been added to the cluster with gluster feature enabled and not
only virt
​


>
> >
> >
> > [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057295
> >
> >
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20171019/0f18d84b/attachment.html>