Hi Andrea, Sure! I've created JCLOUDS-395 to track this: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/JCLOUDS-395
Cheers, Leons From: Andrea Turli <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Date: 12/07/2013 01:02 PM Subject: Re: Pairs of Softlayer hardware_ids with the same configuration, where one gives an error and one works Hi Leons, thanks for your feedback. I think you are right the way the hardwareProfiles are created is a bit 'brute force' and not so smart: it simply tries to create all the possible combinations for cores, ram and volume. Unfortunately it doesn't take into account any possible invalid configuration or for repetitions. We should certainly improve that as well, so please open a jira issue if you can, so that we don't forget. Thanks! Andrea On Fri, Dec 6, 2013 at 9:11 PM, Leons Petrazickis <[email protected]> wrote: When I try to run createNodesInGroup on Softlayer with the settings below, I get an error message. minCores = 4.0 minDisk = 100 minRam = 49152 Error message: {"error":"Order is missing the following category: First Disk.","code":"SoftLayer_Exception_Order_MissingCategory"} It's choosing this hardwareId: 1642,22422,13916 From what I can tell, that hardwareId is identical in configuration to this hardwareId: 1642,22422,13887 Specifying 1642,22422,13887 instead works and an instance provisions successfully. Both have the disk defined in listHardwareProfiles() as: [{id=3899, type=LOCAL, size=100.0, bootDevice=true, durable=false}] [{id=3876, type=LOCAL, size=100.0, bootDevice=true, durable=false}] From what I can tell, there are a lot of false pairs of hardware_ids like these, where one has a working disk configuration and the other doesn't. Why/how are these pairs generated? What is the difference between 1642,22422,13916 and 1642,22422,13887? Thanks, Leons
<<inline: graycol.gif>>
