Eucalyptus UEC-003 Test Results

Joseph Salisbury josephtsalisbury at gmail.com
Wed Oct 14 21:53:49 UTC 2009


On Wed, Oct 14, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Thierry Carrez
<thierry.carrez at ubuntu.com> wrote:
> josephtsalisbury at gmail.com wrote:
>> Your updated test case corrected the issue with images being registered
>> as x86_64 when they should be i386:
>>
>> $ euca-describe-images
>> IMAGE eki-414A16BA
>> k-20091014123237/karmic-uec-i386-vmlinuz-virtual.manifest.xml admin
>> available public i386 kernel
>> IMAGE eri-24D11642
>> r-20091014123237/karmic-uec-i386-initrd-virtual.manifest.xml admin
>> available public i386 ramdisk
>> IMAGE emi-23FE11BA i-20091014123237/karmic-uec-i386.img.manifest.xml
>> admin available public i386 machine
>>
>> Thanks for updating the test case so quickly.
>>
>> I'm having an issue starting an instance, which is the last command in
>> step 7. I still see the "disk not found" and "no domain with matching
>> name found" errors, but I'm also seeing an error saying "no supported
>> architecture for os type 'hvm'":
>>
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:00 2009][001691][EUCAINFO ] currently running/booting:
>> i-39A80763
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:00 2009][001691][EUCAERROR ] libvirt: internal error
>> no supported architecture for os type 'hvm' (code=1)
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:00 2009][001691][EUCAFATAL ] hypervisor failed to
>> start domain
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:00 2009][001691][EUCAERROR ] libvirt: Domain not
>> found: no domain with matching name 'i-39A80763' (code=42)
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:00 2009][001691][EUCAINFO ] vrun(): [rm -rf
>> /var/lib/eucalyptus/instances/admin/i-39A80763/]
>> [Wed Oct 14 14:57:01 2009][001691][EUCAINFO ] stopping the network (vlan=10)
>>
>> I'll investigate and test further.
>
> There might be a bug trying to run EMIs registered as i386 under
> karmic/libvirt. A bug we wouldn't have hit before because:
>
> 1/ we always used euca-register without -r and that defaults to x86_64
> 2/ i386 images run fine in a x86_64 VM
>
> Maybe something related to bug 448671.
>
> --
> Thierry Carrez
> Ubuntu server team
>

Yes my issue does look very similar to bug 448671.  I can either stay
with this i386 install and help test for this bug.  Or, I could
install x86_64 and see if the issue goes away?  Do you have any
preference?

Thanks,

Joe




More information about the Ubuntu-qa mailing list