Hello Guys, Can someone give solution to my issue?
Looking for help. Best Regards, Anil. On Thu, Nov 24, 2016 at 12:14 PM, anil lakineni < anilkumar459.lakin...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear Will, > > Good Afternoon, i hope everything is fine at your end. > > Please find my comments for your questions, > > - do you have VMs allocated, but turned off? They will count towards the > provisioned CPU even though they are not running because they could be > started at any time and are expecting to have the resources to start. > > *Yes, i have few VMs which are in shutdown state. But, AFAIK the CPU will > not be countable towards the VPS's which are in shutdown state. Because, > when i turned OFF/ON any VPS the CPU allocated and percentage of that > allocated values are changing accordingly. * > > > - do you have more than one cluster? The dashboard only shows the most used > cluster, but if you drill down it shows the whole environments resources, > so if you have more than one cluster, that could explain the difference. > *Yes, i have two clusters. if you see my previous e-mails i was already > mentioned that i can see the true allocated value in the DASHBOARD (i.e., > 800GHz/2000GHz) and the same value in the whole resources (Zone level) as > well. But when it comes to percentage value, the DASH BOARD value is > showing wrong (91%) value where as in the whole resources tab the value > showing is 40% and it's correct since mathematically the percentage of > 800/2000 gives us 40%. * > *Here, the issue is with the percentage of allocated CPU value in the DASH > BOARD. Why it is showing wrong? and it causing us to fail the deployments > (since the cloud platform is verifying the percentage of allocated CPU > value what is there in the DASHBOARD not from the whole resources tab).* > > - are you trying to deploy to a specific cluster with a service offering > tag? SvcOffering:WinL? Is that the most used cluster? > *Yes, to the second cluster (WinL tag) i'm trying. And the two clusters > are almost using in the same ratio.* > > > Is it a bug? my Cloud Version is 4.5. > Do i need to restart any services in the management server to get the > actual percentage value at DASH BOARD? > Do i need to hack the DataBase for changes? > > *Please let me know if you need more information to help me on issue > resolving. Thanks.* > > Best Regards, > Anil. > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 3:22 PM, Will Stevens <williamstev...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> A couple things. >> - do you have VMs allocated, but turned off? They will count towards the >> provisioned CPU even though they are not running because they could be >> started at any time and are expecting to have the resources to start. >> - do you have more than one cluster? The dashboard only shows the most >> used >> cluster, but if you drill down it shows the whole environments resources, >> so if you have more than one cluster, that could explain the difference. >> - are you trying to deploy to a specific cluster with a service offering >> tag? SvcOffering:WinL? Is that the most used cluster? >> >> Let us know. >> >> On Nov 22, 2016 6:51 AM, "anil lakineni" <anilkumar459.lakin...@gmail.com >> > >> wrote: >> >> > Hi Sudharma, >> > >> > I verified the management server logs when the VPS got failed to deploy >> and >> > i found that the value of CPU is exceeding than the threshold value So >> that >> > VPS deployment has been failed. >> > Then i have changed the CPU disable & alert threshold value to above 90% >> > and i was able to deploy the VPS. >> > >> > Please check *http://pastebin.com/irrS0TTg < >> http://pastebin.com/irrS0TTg>* >> > for the management server log when the VM deployment was failed. >> > >> > *The brief content of the log is-* >> > >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,100 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > DeploymentPlanner allocation algorithm: >> > com.cloud.deploy.FirstFitPlanner@5a32f393 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,101 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Trying to allocate a host and storage pools from dc:1, >> > pod:null,cluster:null, requested cpu: 38400, requested ram: 68719476736 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,101 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Is ROOT volume READY (pool already allocated)?: No >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,101 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Searching all possible resources under this Zone: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,104 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Listing pods in order of aggregate capacity, that have (atleast one host >> > with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this Zone: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,111 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Removing from the podId list these pods from avoid set: [] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,115 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.AgentManagerImpl] >> > (AgentManager-Handler-14:null) (logid:) SeqA 27-149419: Processing Seq >> > 27-149419: { Cmd , MgmtId: -1, via: 27, Ver: v1, Flags: 11, >> > [{"com.cloud.agent.api.ConsoleProxyLoadReportCommand" >> > :{"_proxyVmId":519,"_loadInfo":"{\n >> > \"connections\": []\n}","wait":0}}] } >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,124 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Checking resources under Pod: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,125 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.AgentManagerImpl] >> > (AgentManager-Handler-14:null) (logid:) SeqA 27-149419: Sending Seq >> > 27-149419: { Ans: , MgmtId: 47019105324719, via: 27, Ver: v1, Flags: >> > 100010, >> > [{"com.cloud.agent.api.AgentControlAnswer":{"result":true,"wait":0}}] } >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,126 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Listing clusters in order of aggregate capacity, that have (atleast one >> > host with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this Pod: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,133 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Removing from the clusterId list these clusters from avoid set: [] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,141 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> > (logid:393001e5) *Cannot >> > allocate cluster list [5] for vm creation since their allocated >> percentage >> > crosses the disable capacity threshold defined at each cluster/ at >> global >> > value for capacity Type : 1, skipping these clusters* >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,156 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Checking resources in Cluster: 1 under Pod: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,156 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Looking for hosts in dc: 1 >> > pod:1 cluster:1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,156 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Looking for hosts having tag >> > specified on SvcOffering:WinL >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,159 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Hosts with tag 'WinL' are:[] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,163 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) FirstFitAllocator has 0 >> hosts to >> > check for allocation: [] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,170 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Found 0 hosts for allocation >> > after prioritization: [] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,170 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Looking for speed=38400Mhz, >> > Ram=65536 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,170 DEBUG [c.c.a.m.a.i.FirstFitAllocator] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf >> > FirstFitRoutingAllocator) (logid:393001e5) Host Allocator returning 0 >> > suitable hosts >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,170 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > No suitable hosts found >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,170 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > No suitable hosts found under this Cluster: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,174 DEBUG [c.c.d.DeploymentPlanningManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Could not find suitable Deployment Destination for this VM under any >> > clusters, returning. >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,174 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Searching all possible resources under this Zone: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,177 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Listing pods in order of aggregate capacity, that have (atleast one host >> > with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this Zone: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,184 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Removing from the podId list these pods from avoid set: [] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,188 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Checking resources under Pod: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,189 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Listing clusters in order of aggregate capacity, that have (atleast one >> > host with) enough CPU and RAM capacity under this Pod: 1 >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,196 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Removing from the clusterId list these clusters from avoid set: [1] >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,205 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> > (logid:393001e5) *Cannot >> > allocate cluster list [5] for vm creation since their allocated >> percentage >> > crosses the disable capacity threshold defined at each cluster/ at >> global >> > value for capacity Type : 1, skipping these clusters* >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,205 DEBUG [c.c.d.FirstFitPlanner] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > No clusters found after removing disabled clusters and clusters in avoid >> > list, returning. >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,212 DEBUG [c.c.v.UserVmManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > Destroying vm VM[User|i-91-736-VM] as it failed to create on Host with >> > Id:null >> > 2016-11-17 12:46:34,252 DEBUG [c.c.c.CapacityManagerImpl] >> > (API-Job-Executor-22:ctx-f48bbb10 job-98412 ctx-daf38dbf) >> (logid:393001e5) >> > VM state transitted from :Stopped to Error with event: >> > OperationFailedToErrorvm's original host id: null new host id: null >> host id >> > before state transition: null >> > >> > >> > Please let me know if you require more information, i will provide you. >> > >> > Best Regards, >> > Anil. >> > >> > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 12:10 PM, Sudharma Jain <sudharma....@gmail.com >> > >> > wrote: >> > >> > > Hi Anil, >> > > >> > > There could be a bug with the dashboard, but it has nothing to do with >> > the >> > > deployment failure. Check your management server logs. >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Sudharma >> > > >> > > On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 1:25 PM, anil lakineni < >> > > anilkumar459.lakin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > >> > > > Good Morning, >> > > > >> > > > @Will- but we don't have support contract. >> > > > >> > > > @Bharat- True, but the allocated CPU percentage value is showing >> wrong >> > in >> > > > the Dashboard where as in Zone's Resources *(Path is: >> 'Infrastructure' >> > -> >> > > > 'Zones' -> 'click on desired zone name' -> 'Resources') *the >> percentage >> > > > value is showing correct. >> > > > >> > > > Total CPU allocated is 800 GHz out of 2000 GHz. So that means the >> > > > percentage value should be in 40% range but in my case it is showing >> > 91% >> > > in >> > > > the Dashboard which leads in failing new deployments. But, the same >> > value >> > > > in Zone's Resources is showing accurate 40% value. >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > But, for new VPS or VM deployments the cloud is preferring dashboard >> > > > percentage value not the one which is there at Zone's Resources. So >> > would >> > > > you help me to fix this issue? >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Best Regards, >> > > > Anil. >> > > > >> > > > On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 7:20 PM, Bharat Kumar < >> > > bharat.ku...@accelerite.com >> > > > > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > >> > > > > Hi, >> > > > > >> > > > > There may be a difference in what you have allocated and what is >> > being >> > > > > actually used. The dashboard shows what is allocated. >> > > > > >> > > > > Regards, >> > > > > Bharat. >> > > > > >> > > > > On 11/21/16, 9:44 PM, "williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of Will >> > > > > Stevens" <williamstev...@gmail.com on behalf of >> > wstev...@cloudops.com> >> > > > > wrote: >> > > > > >> > > > > >You will have to contact Accelerite for support with ACP >> (previously >> > > > CCP). >> > > > > >We have no visibility into the ACP code or how to support you. >> > > > > > >> > > > > >https://support.accelerite.com/hc/en-us >> > > > > > >> > > > > >Best of luck... >> > > > > > >> > > > > >*Will STEVENS* >> > > > > >Lead Developer >> > > > > > >> > > > > ><https://goo.gl/NYZ8KK> >> > > > > > >> > > > > >On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 3:44 AM, anil lakineni < >> > > > > >anilkumar459.lakin...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> Dear All, >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> On CloudPlatform dashboard our CPU usage is showing wrong (high >> > > -91%) >> > > > > value >> > > > > >> which in-turn not allowing us to provision new VMs. But, the >> fact >> > is >> > > > > only >> > > > > >> 40% of the available CPU is utilized and Even in the Dashboard >> > only >> > > > > >> percentage calculation is showing false metric value, But Cpu >> > usage >> > > > > value >> > > > > >> is showing accurate(800/2000 GHZ). >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> In addition to that when we go to check the CPU status at Zones >> > > level >> > > > we >> > > > > >> are seeing the accurate CPU usage percentage in all Zones, >> Only we >> > > are >> > > > > >> getting false usage percentage at dashboard level(which leads >> to >> > > fail >> > > > > the >> > > > > >> new deployments). >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> - Our CCP version is 4.5.0 >> > > > > >> - Hypervisors are Xen 6.2 & 6.5 >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Please help me to sort out this issue and also let me know if >> any >> > > > > >> additional information needed. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> Best Regards, >> > > > > >> Anil. >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > DISCLAIMER >> > > > > ========== >> > > > > This e-mail may contain privileged and confidential information >> which >> > > is >> > > > > the property of Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business. It is >> > > intended >> > > > > only for the use of the individual or entity to which it is >> > addressed. >> > > If >> > > > > you are not the intended recipient, you are not authorized to >> read, >> > > > retain, >> > > > > copy, print, distribute or use this message. If you have received >> > this >> > > > > communication in error, please notify the sender and delete all >> > copies >> > > of >> > > > > this message. Accelerite, a Persistent Systems business does not >> > accept >> > > > any >> > > > > liability for virus infected mails. >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> > >
