apache
[VMware] Disk controller mappings
Description
This is a refactor of the disk controller related logic for VMware that also adds support for SATA and NVME controllers.
A detailed description of these changes is available at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/CLOUDSTACK/Disk+Controller+Mappings.
Types of changes
- [ ] Breaking change (fix or feature that would cause existing functionality to change)
- [X] New feature (non-breaking change which adds functionality)
- [ ] Bug fix (non-breaking change which fixes an issue)
- [ ] Enhancement (improves an existing feature and functionality)
- [X] Cleanup (Code refactoring and cleanup, that may add test cases)
- [ ] build/CI
- [X] test (unit or integration test code)
Feature/Enhancement Scale or Bug Severity
Feature/Enhancement Scale
- [X] Major
- [ ] Minor
How Has This Been Tested?
The tests below were performed for VMs with the following rootDiskController and dataDiskController configurations:
osdefault/osdefault(converted tolsilogic/lsilogic)ide/idepvscsi/pvscsisata/satanvme/nvmesata/lsilogicide/osdefaultosdefault/ide
-
VM deployment: I deployed one VM with each of the configurations. I verified in vCenter that they had the correct amount of disk controllers, and that each volume was associated to the expected controller. The
sata/lsilogicVM was the only one that had a data disk; the others only had a root disk. -
VM start: I stopped the VMs deployed in (1) and started them again. I verified in vCenter that they had the correct amount of disk controllers, and that each volume was associated to the expected controller.
-
Disk attachment: while the VMs were running, I tried to attach a data disk. All the data disks were attached successfully (expect for the VMs using IDE as the data disk controller, which does not allow hot plugging disks; for these, I attached the disks after stopping the VM). I verified that all the disks were using the expected controller. Then, I stopped and started the VM, and verified that they were still using the expected controllers. Finally, I stoped the VMs and detached the volumes. I verified that they were detached successfully.
-
VM import: I unmanaged the VMs and imported them back. I verified that their settings were infered successfully according to the existing disk controllers. Then, I started the VMs, and verified that the controllers and the volumes were configured correctly.
The next tests were performed using the following imported VMs:
osdefault/osdefaultide/idenvme/nvmesata/lsilogic
-
Volume migration: I migrated the volumes from NFS to local storage, and verified that the migration finished successfully. Then, I started the VMs and verified that both the controllers and the disks were configured correctly.
-
Volume resize: I expanded all of the disks, and verified in vCenter that their size was changed. Then, I started the VMs and verified that both the controllers and the disks were configured correctly.
-
VM snapshot: I took some VM snapshots, started the VMs and verified that everything was ok. I changed the configurations of the VM using
osdefault/osdefaulttosata/sataand started the VM to begin the reconfiguration process. I verified that the disk controllers in use were not removed, and that the disks were still associated with the previous controllers; however, the SATA controllers were also created. The VM was working as expected. Finally, I deleted the VM snapshots. -
Template creation from volume: I created templates from the root disks. Then, I deployed VMs from the templates. I verified that all the VMs had the same disk controllers as the original VM, and that the only existing disk was correctly associated with the configured root disk controller.
-
Template creation from volume snapshot: I took snapshots from the root disks, and created templates from the snapshots. Then, I deployed VMs from the templates. I verified that all the VMs had the same disk controllers as the original VM, and that the only existing disk was correctly associated with the configured root disk controller.
-
VM scale: with the VMs stopped, I scaled the VM from Small Instance to Medium Instance. I verified that the offering was changed. I started the VMs, and verified that the VMs were correctly reconfigured in vCenter.
Other tests:
-
System VM creation: after applying the patches, I recreated the SSVM and the CPVM. I verified that they were using a single LSI Logic controller. I also verified the controllers of a new VR and of an existing VR.
-
I attached 3 disks to the
ide/idecontroller. When trying to attach a 4th disk, I got an expected exception, as the IDE bus reached the maximum amount of devices (the 4th one was the CD/DVD drive). -
I removed all the disks from the
sata/lsilogicVM. I tried to attach the root disk again, and verified that it was attached successfully. I started the VM, and verified that it was configured correctly. -
I attached 8 disks to the
pvscsi/pvscsiVM, and verified that the 8th disk was successfully attached to device number 8 (device number 7 is reserved for the controller).
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.
Codecov Report
:x: Patch coverage is 62.92776% with 195 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.
:white_check_mark: Project coverage is 17.63%. Comparing base (a15fbd9) to head (188be60).
:warning: Report is 14 commits behind head on main.
Additional details and impacted files
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #10454 +/- ##
============================================
+ Coverage 17.53% 17.63% +0.09%
- Complexity 15463 15590 +127
============================================
Files 5897 5900 +3
Lines 527397 527687 +290
Branches 64407 64382 -25
============================================
+ Hits 92505 93060 +555
+ Misses 424496 424191 -305
- Partials 10396 10436 +40
| Flag | Coverage Δ | |
|---|---|---|
| uitests | 3.59% <ø> (-0.01%) |
:arrow_down: |
| unittests | 18.70% <62.92%> (+0.10%) |
:arrow_up: |
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.
:umbrella: View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
:loudspeaker: Have feedback on the report? Share it here.
:rocket: New features to boost your workflow:
- :snowflake: Test Analytics: Detect flaky tests, report on failures, and find test suite problems.
- :package: JS Bundle Analysis: Save yourself from yourself by tracking and limiting bundle sizes in JS merges.
![codecov[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/254?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
Packaging result [SF]: ✖️ el8 ✖️ el9 ✖️ debian ✖️ suse15. SL-JID 12549
@DaanHoogland it seems there were some merge issues in main. org.apache.cloudstack.backup.VeeamBackupProvider is missing some methods and imports.
@DaanHoogland it seems there were some merge issues in main.
org.apache.cloudstack.backup.VeeamBackupProvideris missing some methods and imports.
I'll check and update
@winterhazel , please see #10457 . I have had no time (or infra) to test yet.
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 12586
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.
![github-actions[bot] avatar](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?v=4 "Published by a pub.dev verified publisher"){kind=small}
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 13603
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + kvm-ol8) has been kicked to run smoke tests
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13478) Environment: kvm-ol8 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8 Total time taken: 67978 seconds Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr10454-t13478-kvm-ol8.zip Smoke tests completed. 141 look OK, 0 have errors, 0 did not run Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:
| Test | Result | Time (s) | Test File |
|---|
This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.
@winterhazel a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14104
looks like you packaged before pushing the last changes @winterhazel , so @blueorangutan package
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.
Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 14114
@DaanHoogland a [SL] Trillian-Jenkins test job (ol8 mgmt + vmware-70u3) has been kicked to run smoke tests
[SF] Trillian test result (tid-13741) Environment: vmware-70u3 (x2), Advanced Networking with Mgmt server ol8 Total time taken: 120438 seconds Marvin logs: https://github.com/blueorangutan/acs-prs/releases/download/trillian/pr10454-t13741-vmware-70u3.zip Smoke tests completed. 138 look OK, 3 have errors, 0 did not run Only failed and skipped tests results shown below:
| Test | Result | Time (s) | Test File |
|---|---|---|---|
| test_01_prepare_and_cancel_maintenance | Error |
0.26 | test_ms_maintenance_and_safe_shutdown.py |
| test_01_deploy_vm_on_specific_host | Error |
21.92 | test_vm_deployment_planner.py |
| test_02_deploy_vm_on_specific_cluster | Error |
3603.06 | test_vm_deployment_planner.py |
| test_03_deploy_vm_on_specific_pod | Error |
1.40 | test_vm_deployment_planner.py |
| test_04_deploy_vm_on_host_override_pod_and_cluster | Error |
2.46 | test_vm_deployment_planner.py |
| test_05_deploy_vm_on_cluster_override_pod | Error |
1.32 | test_vm_deployment_planner.py |
| test_01_migrate_vm_strict_tags_success | Error |
3604.35 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_02_migrate_vm_strict_tags_failure | Error |
5.93 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_01_restore_vm_strict_tags_success | Error |
17.05 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_02_restore_vm_strict_tags_failure | Error |
3604.39 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_01_scale_vm_strict_tags_success | Error |
23.34 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_02_scale_vm_strict_tags_failure | Error |
3603.60 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_01_deploy_vm_on_specific_host_without_strict_tags | Error |
12.95 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_02_deploy_vm_on_any_host_without_strict_tags | Error |
3606.17 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_03_deploy_vm_on_specific_host_with_strict_tags_success | Error |
3.88 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
| test_04_deploy_vm_on_any_host_with_strict_tags_success | Error |
3606.40 | test_vm_strict_host_tags.py |
I don’t think the regression failures are related, but thourough testing is required I’d say.