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

[Allon Mureinik]

Bloody hell. The original was also completely broken, and worked by chance.
Damn it.

This should fix it:
https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/82989/

On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 3:49 PM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com> wrote:

> So the real issue on adding a host is the same as I've today described in
> [2] and most probably caused by [3] (I reverted engine in my dev env prior
> this patch and host deploy finished successfully).
>
> Allon, do you have time to post a fix? If not I'll try to dig into your
> change and related networking code to post it ...
>
>
> [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1504005
> [3] https://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/82545/
>
> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:12 AM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 19, 2017 at 11:04 AM, Martin Perina <mperina at redhat.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 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/bf0df178/attachment.html>