Hello,
Temporarily we overcome the error handling the response before delivered to
cloudbridge server and fixing the values. When that was done, we got the
following:
Server.InternalError: Property deployvirtualmachineresponse.virtualmachine
is resolved to null JSON element on object:
{"deployvirtualmachineresponse":{"errorcode":431,"errortext":"Unable to
execute API command deployvirtualmachine due to invalid value. Object
disk_offering(uuid: 2224444f-6a56-448e-b) does not exist."}}
Looking at the cloudbridge
/usr/share/cloud/bridge/conf/ec2-service.properties file, we saw all
properties were correctly set. Looking at cloudbridge database, at the
offering_bundle table, we saw the uuid string causing the problem.
At first we thought there was a user error when inserting the value, since
those values were inserted manually. (I'm not sure what the expected
behaviour is: the cloud-setup-bridge creates a properties file and sets up
amazon-cloudstack mappings, but values are being retrieved from the
cloudbridge database and not being inserted into it.
Did we miss something here?)
We tried to update the value with the correct string, but we got the
following warning:
*************************** 1. row ***************************
Level: Warning
Code: 1265
Message: Data truncated for column 'CloudStackOffering' at row 1
1 row in set (0.00 sec)
As a temporary solution we tried recreating the table with same parameters
did not work. Recreating the offering_bundle table changing the varchar(20)
to varchar(100) at CloudStackOffering column solved the issue: the uuid was
no longer truncated:
CREATE TABLE `offering_bundle` (`ID` int(11) NOT NULL
AUTO_INCREMENT,`AmazonEC2Offering` varchar(100) NOT
NULL,`CloudStackOffering` varchar(100) NOT NULL,PRIMARY KEY (`ID`),UNIQUE
KEY `one_offering` (`AmazonEC2Offering`)) ENGINE=InnoDB AUTO_INCREMENT=2
DEFAULT CHARSET=utf8;
Did anyone had a similar problem?
Thanks,
Jose.
On Tue, May 29, 2012 at 6:36 PM, Sam Robertson <sam.robert...@citrix.com>wrote:
> Hi Jose,
>
> The error you are seeing here is related to CloudBridge not fully
> supporting 3.0 CloudStack yet. I'm fixing this and we will spin a new
> release 1.1.1. The problem, as you point out here is that CloudBridge
> assumed the id was a pure numeric value, like it was in pre-3.0
> CloudStack. Although I've caught most of these and fixed them over the
> past few weeks, there are still some loose ends in CloudBridge.
>
> CloudBridge is being integrated within CloudStack, and although I've
> attempted to support CloudStack 3.0 changes in CloudBridge, the real 3.0
> support will be in the integrated version going forward.
>
> I'll follow up on your other thread about run-instances in an advanced
> networking scenario on that thread.
>
> Sam
>
> On 5/29/12 2:07 PM, "Jose Rozanec" <jroza...@tendrilinc.com> wrote:
>
> >Hello,
> >
> >Invoking
> >./ec2-run-instances -z zone1 -n 1 -t m1.small --connection-timeout 120
> >--request-timeout 120 208
> >we are getting the following exception on the cloudbridge log:
> >
> >
> > 1. returned:
> >
> >{"listresourcelimitsresponse":{"count":1,"resourcelimit":[{"account":"devs
> >oa","domainid":"a93fb664-b4df-4839-abbb-0baea5acc940","domain":"ROOT","res
> >ourcetype":"0","max":20}]}}
> > 2. 2012-05-29 14:46:35,852 DEBUG [cloud.stack.CloudStackClient]
> > (catalina-exec-11:) Unable to find responseObjName:[resourcelimit].
> > Returning null! Exception: The JsonDeserializer LongDeserializer
> >failed to
> > deserialized json object "a93fb664-b4df-4839-abbb-0baea5acc940" given
> >the
> > type class java.lang.Long
> >
> >
> >Full stack trace here: http://pastebin.com/9VT9AUBn
> >
> >It seems it makes a request to do some validations related to resource
> >limits. It gets a correct response, but it expects to get a long at
> >domainid,
> >not the uuid string, and this seems to break the call.
> >
> >Any ideas?
> >Thanks in advance,
> >
> >Jose.
> >
> >
> >This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
> >intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
> >addressed.
> >If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
> >Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely
> >those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
> >Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for
> >the presence of viruses.
> >The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus
> >transmitted by this email.
>
>
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended
solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed.
If you have received this email in error please notify the sender.
Please note that any views or opinions presented in this email are solely those
of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the company.
Finally, the recipient should check this email and any attachments for the
presence of viruses.
The company accepts no liability for any damage caused by any virus transmitted
by this email.
