Ok. Thank you.
Regards Piotr Kandziora On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:00 PM, Carlos Martín Sánchez < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > The problem was clear after a few tests, I don't think we need those > outputs anymore. The final 4.2 version will be released pretty soon, > including this fix. > > Thanks > > -- > Join us at OpenNebulaConf2013 <http://opennebulaconf.com> in Berlin, > 24-26 September, 2013 > -- > Carlos Martín, MSc > Project Engineer > OpenNebula - The Open-source Solution for Data Center Virtualization > www.OpenNebula.org | [email protected] | > @OpenNebula<http://twitter.com/opennebula><[email protected]> > > > On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:35 AM, Piotr Kandziora <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> >> Thank you for your reponse. It's nice that you fixed the problem. In my >> opinion it was an easy way to bypass quota limits - as far as number of >> allowed VMs is concerned. >> >> >> Unfortunatelly I can not give you now outputs of comamnds you are asking >> for. I'll try to provide them to you after a maintanance window. I needed >> to have this working asap so I looked for a workaround. I resigned from the >> defaultquota/group quota and now sets quota for each user using USER_HOOK >> (and this works with resize). >> >> >> I suppose that config files I mentioned in my previous e-mail can be >> helpful. >> >> >> Regards, >> Piotr Kandziora >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 22, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Carlos Martín Sánchez < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> >>> Looks like you've found a bug, I can confirm it. If the resize operation >>> fails because of the group limits, the user's VM usage is decremented [1]. >>> Can you share a bit more about your quotas? At least the output of >>> oneuser/onegroup show/defaultquota. >>> >>> Regards >>> [1] http://dev.opennebula.org/issues/2200 >>> >>> -- >>> Join us at OpenNebulaConf2013 <http://opennebulaconf.com> in Berlin, >>> 24-26 September, 2013 >>> -- >>> Carlos Martín, MSc >>> Project Engineer >>> OpenNebula - The Open-source Solution for Data Center Virtualization >>> www.OpenNebula.org | [email protected] | >>> @OpenNebula<http://twitter.com/opennebula><[email protected]> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:37 PM, Piotr Kandziora <[email protected]>wrote: >>> >>>> Hi, >>>> >>>> I try to resize VM capacity (add 0.5 CPU and 1GB RAM). According to the >>>> available quota resources this action should succeed, >>>> >>>> but >>>> >>>> every time I try to change VM capacity via Sunstone this action fails >>>> due to exceeded quota (FAILURE [VirtualMachineResize] group [1] limit of >>>> 2.5 reached for CPU quota in VM) and number of VMS gets incremental >>>> negative value. >>>> >>>> oneadmin@master:~$ oneuser list >>>> ID NAME GROUP AUTH VMS MEMORY >>>> CPU >>>> 0 oneadmin oneadmin core - - >>>> - >>>> 1 serveradmin oneadmin server_c - - >>>> - >>>> 2 pkandziora users ldap -7 / 5 3.5G / 5G >>>> 1.0 / 2 >>>> >>>> >>>> My quota configuration: >>>> >>>> # oneuser defaultquota userquota.def >>>> >>>> VM=[ >>>> CPU="2.5", (here's another issue, oneuser list displays integer >>>> value of CPU) >>>> MEMORY="5120", >>>> VMS="5" >>>> ] >>>> >>>> # onegroup quota users groupquota.def >>>> >>>> VM=[ >>>> CPU="-1", >>>> MEMORY="-1", >>>> VMS="-1" >>>> ] >>>> >>>> DATASTORE=[ >>>> ID="101", >>>> IMAGES="-1", >>>> SIZE="1024000" >>>> ] >>>> >>>> >>>> Is there any interpretation of this negative value of VMS or this is a >>>> bug? If you see any mistakes in my configuration that makes VM capacity >>>> change impossible please let me know. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance >>>> Piotr Kandziora >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Users mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opennebula.org/listinfo.cgi/users-opennebula.org
