Re: Secondary storage doesn't work
The host value has the correct IP so I didn't make any changes there. I did some Googling and found someone mentioning uploading need to happen over https rather than http, so I switched to https, still no luck. Checking the log, it says something about unable to find matched VM for management VM in CloudStack DB The ISO info is registering though, so now I have several items on the list of ISOs, but none of it actually point to an actual ISO file, so I can't delete them from the UI either, but that's least of my concern right now. Very tempted to redo everything once more to see if I can make it work... Dreading the outdated list of dependencies though... On 2021/07/19 07:03:46, Darrin Hüsselmann wrote: > Hi Andy, > > No worries, have a look at what is set in the global variable "host". You can > find global variables by going to Configuration -> Global Settings. You can > use the search field to narrow down the options. If you must make a change > there, try destroying the system VMs after changing the setting. > > Cheers, > Darrin > > > From: Andy Nguyen > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:55 AM > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Secondary storage doesn't work > > First off, sorry for the dup post. 2nd, sorry for the late reply, and 3rd, my > apologies for being such an idiot. I found that I missed the system VM > template step completely in all the times I go through the steps. > > That said, I got the system VM up, and now getting different error, that it > can't find the server. I checked the log, it says it can't resolve the server > name I provided, which is odd. I made sure the name resolves through the DNS, > I also made the entry in host file on the management VM, host machine, and my > own. There's no problem resolving the name from CLI. The only place I haven't > done anything is the system VM that's created from template, but logically it > should just pull from DNS on the network, right? > > On 2021/07/14 11:16:46, Darrin Hüsselmann > wrote: > > Hi Andy, > > > > I agree with Ed. > > > > The error you are receiving means the Secondary Storage System VM has not > > started and is not in the correct state to download the iso. > > > > Cloudstack needs to start two System VMs for it to be operational, Console > > Proxy VM and Secondary Storage VM. But before it can do that, it needs a > > template to build the VMs from. > > > > You must execute the script from the management server that will upload the > > correct system VM template to your secondary storage first before the SSVM > > and CPVM can be started. Only then will you be able to register an iso. > > > > https://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/latest/installguide/management-server/index.html#prepare-the-system-vm-template > > > > You can find the Cloudstack logs under > > > > /var/log/cloudstack/ > > > > Regards > > Darrin > > > > From: Edward St Pierre > > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 12:38 PM > > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Secondary storage doesn't work > > > > Hi Andy, > > > > Have you prepared the system VM template? > > > > Ed > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 11:32, Andy Nguyen wrote: > > > > > Short version: identical nfs export for primary and secondary. Primary > > > works fine, secondary mounts but doesn't write. > > > > > > Long version: > > > I asked this on reddit > > > https://www.reddit.com/r/cloudstack/comments/o8rbsb/secondary_storage_help_please/ > > > but didn't get much light on the matter. > > > Hypervisor host: Alma Linux + QEMU KVM + Cloudstack Agent + nfsd > > > Start a VM, also run Alma Linux + Cloudstack Management. > > > > > > Mount both primary and secondary via the web interface, that completed > > > without error. > > > Went and add ISO and I got "Request Failed (530) There is no secondary > > > storage VM for downloading template to image store Secondary" > > > > > > I can manually mount the NFS shares and read/write to it from inside the > > > VM without problem, so it's clearly not NFS nor permission problem. > > > > > > Any help on where I may start with troubleshooting? What log should I be > > > looking at? > > > > > >
Cloudstack quota, billing, usage_discriminator... How the Usage, or Quata plugin, makes the calculation?
Hello all. I'm trying to test the Usage, or Quota Plugin, to take values and make billing with the CloudStack that we are testing here, in my company. I do not understand how it makes the count. I needed to change the values directly on da data base, so I'm not sure if it is the best plate to do it and the result it not what I was thought. Here, on the image, one example of my "billing". Why this value is negative? Where, and how, it is made the calculation? Am I looking for to the right place? Best regards
Re: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.16
Thank you for your support. Please find the proposed timeline below for discussion: 4.16.0.0 release - target for end Q3 2021 (6 weeks) Ongoing - End of August 2021: accept all bugs, issues, improvements allowed in LTS [1] (2 weeks) Mid-September 2021: accept only critical/blocker fixes (1 week) Stabilise 4.16 branch, accept only blocker issues if any End of September 2021: Cut 4.16.0.0 RC1 and further RCs if necessary, start/conclude vote, and finish release work [1] https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/LTS Any thoughts/objections? Regards, Nicolas Vazquez From: Nicolas Vazquez Sent: Wednesday, June 23, 2021 10:32 AM To: d...@cloudstack.apache.org Cc: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: [PROPOSE] RM for 4.16 Dear All, I’d like to put myself forward as the release manager for 4.16.0.0 and my colleagues Suresh Anaparti and Rohit Yadav as the co-RMs. For 4.16.0.0 my colleague Suresh will assist me during the process for reviewing/testing/merging the PRs, others will be welcome to support as well. I propose we have a window of at least 8 weeks (2 months) to allow community and users to test and report issues and aim to cut RC1 in Q3 2021 (September or onwards). I'll propose timeline and details by the end of July. I hope to have your support. Any thoughts, feedback, comments? Thanks. Regards, Nicolas Vazquez
Re: Error while starting VM ID ###
Hi Vivek, Tailed the managerment log and it shows 2 errors that are related with the creation of new VMs SR_BACKEND_FAILURE_202 and StoragePool is in avoid set, skipping pool. Not too sure if both are related though. On 2021/07/19 11:06:02, Vivek Kumar wrote: > Hello, > > You should probably look management-server.log, it will give you more clarity > why it’s is failing. > > Regards, > Vivek Kumar > > > > On 19-Jul-2021, at 4:32 PM, Poco Loco wrote: > > > > Hello everyone - I am experiencing a weird issue with my Cloudstack install > > v4.15, the Primary storage appears to have 52.71% allocated but all new VMs > > are failing as the ROOT/Data disks are not being created properly then the > > deployment fails. > > > > I am relatively new using cloudstack on a homelab setup and any assistance > > will be very much helpful. > > > > Regards, > > Paul > >
Re: Scale Running VM.
If you got till here I believe you have already enabled global setting and marked the template as dynamically scalable. Please check if host license supports dynamic scaling or not. In the host license view on xenserver you can check that using "restrict_dmc" flag. If it is set to true then dynamic scaling cannot be done on VM. If it is false, then other thing you can check is "guest_os_details" table for "xenserver.dynamicMin" and "xenserver.dynamicMax" under the guest OS id used in the template. If entries are not there try using a different template having these entries or insert recommended values for that OS. Regards, Harikrishna From: Abishek Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2021 12:53 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Scale Running VM. Hello EveryOne, Is it possible to scale a running vm with host XCP-ng 8.2 and cloudstack 4.15.1. I am testing it for production enviromnment. I tried enabling it but received the following error: Caused by: com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Unable to scale vm due to Catch exception com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException when scaling VM:i-2-5-VM due to com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Cannot scale up the vm because of memory constraint violation: 0 <= memory-static-min(4294967296) <= memory-dynamic-min(8589934592) <= memory-dynamic-max(8589934592) <= memory-static-max(4294967296) Where can I set these min max values. If any one can point me to the documentation if its possible then I will be very grateful. Thank You.
Re: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core
I am very grateful for your response. I have used the following deployment scenario. 2 host with XCP-ng 8.2 1st host has 2CPU socket each of 24 core (96vCPU) 2nd host has 2CPU socket each of 6 core (24 vCPU) The value "xen.vm.vcpu.max" is currently set to 16. And the dynamic scale for template is turned off. I will further test as per the details provided. I will revert you back after the test. Thank You very much. On 2021/07/19 10:51:20, Harikrishna Patnala wrote: > Hi Abhishek, > > There is a global setting "xen.vm.vcpu.max" which can be configured to the > desired value. But I think hosts in the cluster should also have the required > number of CPU sockets. The minimum of CPU sockets numbers of the hosts in the > cluster will be assigned to the VPCUs-max. I remember assigning a greater > value to vCPU-max than the CPU sockets number of the host results in VM start > error. So in your case, it should be a maximum of 4. > > Regards, > Harikrishna > > From: Abishek > Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:25 AM > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core > > Hello EveryOne, > > I am deployed XCP-ng 8.2 host with cloudstack 4.15.1. Every thing is > sucessfully setup with 2 XCP-ng host. But I am facing a problem while > deploying a vm greater than 4 cores. Every time I try to start a VM with more > than 4 cores I get the error VCPUs-at-startup, 5, value greater than > VCPUs-max. > I will be very grateful if somebody can help me resolve the issue. We are > trying to go into production with XCP-ng 8.2. > > Thank You. > > > >
Re: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core
Hi, I just saw the other email thread. Yes, you can try disabling the dynamic scaling and then try deploying and start the VM. But I also see you are testing dynamic scale VM, in that case, please check my previous reply, Regards, Harikrishna From: Harikrishna Patnala Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:21 PM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core Hi Abhishek, There is a global setting "xen.vm.vcpu.max" which can be configured to the desired value. But I think hosts in the cluster should also have the required number of CPU sockets. The minimum of CPU sockets numbers of the hosts in the cluster will be assigned to the VPCUs-max. I remember assigning a greater value to vCPU-max than the CPU sockets number of the host results in VM start error. So in your case, it should be a maximum of 4. Regards, Harikrishna From: Abishek Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:25 AM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core Hello EveryOne, I am deployed XCP-ng 8.2 host with cloudstack 4.15.1. Every thing is sucessfully setup with 2 XCP-ng host. But I am facing a problem while deploying a vm greater than 4 cores. Every time I try to start a VM with more than 4 cores I get the error VCPUs-at-startup, 5, value greater than VCPUs-max. I will be very grateful if somebody can help me resolve the issue. We are trying to go into production with XCP-ng 8.2. Thank You.
Re: Error while starting VM ID ###
Hello, You should probably look management-server.log, it will give you more clarity why it’s is failing. Regards, Vivek Kumar > On 19-Jul-2021, at 4:32 PM, Poco Loco wrote: > > Hello everyone - I am experiencing a weird issue with my Cloudstack install > v4.15, the Primary storage appears to have 52.71% allocated but all new VMs > are failing as the ROOT/Data disks are not being created properly then the > deployment fails. > > I am relatively new using cloudstack on a homelab setup and any assistance > will be very much helpful. > > Regards, > Paul
Error while starting VM ID ###
Hello everyone - I am experiencing a weird issue with my Cloudstack install v4.15, the Primary storage appears to have 52.71% allocated but all new VMs are failing as the ROOT/Data disks are not being created properly then the deployment fails. I am relatively new using cloudstack on a homelab setup and any assistance will be very much helpful. Regards, Paul
Re: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core
Hi Abhishek, There is a global setting "xen.vm.vcpu.max" which can be configured to the desired value. But I think hosts in the cluster should also have the required number of CPU sockets. The minimum of CPU sockets numbers of the hosts in the cluster will be assigned to the VPCUs-max. I remember assigning a greater value to vCPU-max than the CPU sockets number of the host results in VM start error. So in your case, it should be a maximum of 4. Regards, Harikrishna From: Abishek Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 9:25 AM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core Hello EveryOne, I am deployed XCP-ng 8.2 host with cloudstack 4.15.1. Every thing is sucessfully setup with 2 XCP-ng host. But I am facing a problem while deploying a vm greater than 4 cores. Every time I try to start a VM with more than 4 cores I get the error VCPUs-at-startup, 5, value greater than VCPUs-max. I will be very grateful if somebody can help me resolve the issue. We are trying to go into production with XCP-ng 8.2. Thank You.
Re: IPV6 in Isolated/VPC networks
Op 17-07-2021 om 06:28 schreef Hean Seng: I think if doing this way , since you were to implement on peering ip between vr and phsical router , then would need keep /56 or 48 at Clodustack ? We can only add /64 subnet to Cloudstack only (instead of keep the /56 or 48 there). We can have a /64 at CloudStack in which all VRs talk with the router of the ISP. That is large enough as a interconnect subnet between the VRs and routers. From there you can route /56, /48 or which size you want towards the VR. From the interconnect /64 you can also grab IPs which you use for loadbalancing purposes over different VMs. I saw other software provider do is adding /64 subnet to their system, and after that allocate subnet to the VM (from the previous added list). May be considering the OSPF if really on this. It really a nightmare for maintaining 1000 or few thousand of BGP session. You can imagine your Cisco Router list of few thousand BGP session there. Yes, but I would suggest that both OSPFv3 and BGP should work. Not everybody will have 1000 accounts on their environment. Even static routes should be supported. Wido On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:17 PM Wido den Hollander wrote: Op 16-07-2021 om 16:42 schreef Hean Seng: Hi Wido, In current setup, each Cloudstack have own VR, so in this new IPv6 subnet allocation , each VR (which have Frr) will need to have peering with ISP router (and either BGP or Static Route) , and there is 1000 Acocunts, it will 1000 BGP session with ISP router , Am I right for this ? or I understand wrong . Yes, that is correct. A /56 would also be sufficient or a /60 which is enough to allocate a few /64 subnets. 1000 BGP connections isn't really a problem for a proper router at the ISP. OSPF(v3) would be better, but as I said that's poorly supported. The ISP could also install 1000 static routes, but that means that the ISP's router needs to have those configured. http://docs.frrouting.org/en/latest/ospf6d.html (While looking up this URL I see that Frr recently put in a lot of work in OSPFv3, seems better now) I understand IPv6 is different then IPv4, and in IPv6 it suppose each devices have own IP. It just how to realize in easy way. On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 8:17 PM Wido den Hollander wrote: Op 16-07-2021 om 05:54 schreef Hean Seng: Hi Wido, My initial thought is not like this, it is the /48 at ISP router, and /64 subnet assign to AdvanceZoneVR, AdvanceZoneVR responsible is distribule IPv6 ip (from the assigned /64 sunet) to VM, and not routing the traffic, in the VM that get the IPv6 IP will default route to ISP router as gw. It can may be a bridge over via Advancezone-VR. How would you bridge this? That sounds like NAT? IPv6 is meant to be routed. Not to be translated or bridged in any way. The way a made the drawing is exactly how IPv6 should work in a VPC environment. Traffic flows through the VR where it can do firewalling of the traffic. However, If do as the way described in the drawing, then i suppose will be another kind of virtual router going to introduce , to get hold the /48 in this virtual router right ? It can be the same VR. But keep in mind that IPv6 != IPv4. The VR will get Frr as a new daemon which can talk BGP with the upper network to route traffic. After this, The Advance Zone, NAT's VR will peer with this new IPv6 VR for getting the IPv6 /64 prefix ? IPv4 will be behind NAT, but IPv6 will not be behind NAT. If do in this way, then I guess you just only need Static route, with peering ip both end as one /48 can have a lot of /64 on it. And hardware budgeting for new IPv6-VR will become very important, as all traffic will need to pass over it . Routing or NAT is the same for the VR. You don't need a very beefy VR for this. It will be like ISP Router -- > (new IPV6-VR ) > AdvanceZone-VR > VM Relationship of (new IPv6 VR) and AdvanceZone-VR , may be considering on OSPF instead of BGP , otherwise few thousand of AdvanceZone-VR wil have few thousand of BGP session. on new-IPv6-VR Also, I suppose we cannot do ISP router. -->. Advancezone VR direct, , otherwise ISP router will be full of /64 prefix route either on BGP( Many BGP Session) , or Many Static route . If few thousand account, ti will be few thousand of BGP session with ISP router or few thousand static route which is not possible . On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 10:47 PM Wido den Hollander wrote: But you still need routing. See the attached PNG (and draw.io XML). You need to route the /48 subnet TO the VR which can then route it to the Virtual Networks behind the VR. There is no other way then routing with either BGP or a Static route. Wido Op 15-07-2021 om 12:39 schreef Hean Seng: Or explain like this : 1) Cloudstack generate list of /64 subnet from /48 that Network admin assigned to Cloudstack 2) Cloudsack allocated the subnet (that generated from s
Re: Issue in staring vm above 4 Cores.
Hello Abhishesk,
Is "dynamically scalable" selected in your template ? Try to disable it and
then try to provision with higher number of CPU and see.
Regards,
Vivek Kumar
> On 18-Jul-2021, at 1:30 PM, Abishek wrote:
>
> Hello everyone,
>
> I am facing trouble in starting vm above 4 cores in XCP-ng 8.2 with
> cloudstack 4.15.1.
> I receive the following error:
> nameLabel: Async.VM.start_on
> nameDescription:
> allowedOperations: []
> currentOperations: {}
> created: Sun Jul 18 13:26:27 NPT 2021
>finished: Sun Jul 18 13:26:27 NPT 2021
> status: failure
> residentOn: com.xensource.xenapi.Host@d0a6e290
>progress: 1.0
>type:
> result:
> errorInfo: [VALUE_NOT_SUPPORTED, VCPUs-at-startup, 4, value greater
> than VCPUs-max]
> otherConfig: {}
> subtaskOf: com.xensource.xenapi.Task@aaf13f6f
>subtasks: []
> Where can I increase this value?
> Thank You.
>
XCP-ng 8.2 cannot start vm more than 4 core
Hello EveryOne, I am deployed XCP-ng 8.2 host with cloudstack 4.15.1. Every thing is sucessfully setup with 2 XCP-ng host. But I am facing a problem while deploying a vm greater than 4 cores. Every time I try to start a VM with more than 4 cores I get the error VCPUs-at-startup, 5, value greater than VCPUs-max. I will be very grateful if somebody can help me resolve the issue. We are trying to go into production with XCP-ng 8.2. Thank You.
Issue in staring vm above 4 Cores.
Hello everyone,
I am facing trouble in starting vm above 4 cores in XCP-ng 8.2 with cloudstack
4.15.1.
I receive the following error:
nameLabel: Async.VM.start_on
nameDescription:
allowedOperations: []
currentOperations: {}
created: Sun Jul 18 13:26:27 NPT 2021
finished: Sun Jul 18 13:26:27 NPT 2021
status: failure
residentOn: com.xensource.xenapi.Host@d0a6e290
progress: 1.0
type:
result:
errorInfo: [VALUE_NOT_SUPPORTED, VCPUs-at-startup, 4, value greater
than VCPUs-max]
otherConfig: {}
subtaskOf: com.xensource.xenapi.Task@aaf13f6f
subtasks: []
Where can I increase this value?
Thank You.
Scale Running VM.
Hello EveryOne, Is it possible to scale a running vm with host XCP-ng 8.2 and cloudstack 4.15.1. I am testing it for production enviromnment. I tried enabling it but received the following error: Caused by: com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Unable to scale vm due to Catch exception com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException when scaling VM:i-2-5-VM due to com.cloud.utils.exception.CloudRuntimeException: Cannot scale up the vm because of memory constraint violation: 0 <= memory-static-min(4294967296) <= memory-dynamic-min(8589934592) <= memory-dynamic-max(8589934592) <= memory-static-max(4294967296) Where can I set these min max values. If any one can point me to the documentation if its possible then I will be very grateful. Thank You.
Re: Secondary storage doesn't work
Hi Andy, No worries, have a look at what is set in the global variable "host". You can find global variables by going to Configuration -> Global Settings. You can use the search field to narrow down the options. If you must make a change there, try destroying the system VMs after changing the setting. Cheers, Darrin From: Andy Nguyen Sent: Monday, July 19, 2021 4:55 AM To: users@cloudstack.apache.org Subject: Re: Secondary storage doesn't work First off, sorry for the dup post. 2nd, sorry for the late reply, and 3rd, my apologies for being such an idiot. I found that I missed the system VM template step completely in all the times I go through the steps. That said, I got the system VM up, and now getting different error, that it can't find the server. I checked the log, it says it can't resolve the server name I provided, which is odd. I made sure the name resolves through the DNS, I also made the entry in host file on the management VM, host machine, and my own. There's no problem resolving the name from CLI. The only place I haven't done anything is the system VM that's created from template, but logically it should just pull from DNS on the network, right? On 2021/07/14 11:16:46, Darrin Hüsselmann wrote: > Hi Andy, > > I agree with Ed. > > The error you are receiving means the Secondary Storage System VM has not > started and is not in the correct state to download the iso. > > Cloudstack needs to start two System VMs for it to be operational, Console > Proxy VM and Secondary Storage VM. But before it can do that, it needs a > template to build the VMs from. > > You must execute the script from the management server that will upload the > correct system VM template to your secondary storage first before the SSVM > and CPVM can be started. Only then will you be able to register an iso. > > https://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/latest/installguide/management-server/index.html#prepare-the-system-vm-template > > You can find the Cloudstack logs under > > /var/log/cloudstack/ > > Regards > Darrin > > From: Edward St Pierre > Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2021 12:38 PM > To: users@cloudstack.apache.org > Subject: Re: Secondary storage doesn't work > > Hi Andy, > > Have you prepared the system VM template? > > Ed > > > > > On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 11:32, Andy Nguyen wrote: > > > Short version: identical nfs export for primary and secondary. Primary > > works fine, secondary mounts but doesn't write. > > > > Long version: > > I asked this on reddit > > https://www.reddit.com/r/cloudstack/comments/o8rbsb/secondary_storage_help_please/ > > but didn't get much light on the matter. > > Hypervisor host: Alma Linux + QEMU KVM + Cloudstack Agent + nfsd > > Start a VM, also run Alma Linux + Cloudstack Management. > > > > Mount both primary and secondary via the web interface, that completed > > without error. > > Went and add ISO and I got "Request Failed (530) There is no secondary > > storage VM for downloading template to image store Secondary" > > > > I can manually mount the NFS shares and read/write to it from inside the > > VM without problem, so it's clearly not NFS nor permission problem. > > > > Any help on where I may start with troubleshooting? What log should I be > > looking at? > > >
