add-machine lxd:0 provisioning error: "Error adding alias ubuntu-xenial: not found"

Bug #1558223 reported by Andrew McDermott
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
juju-core
Expired
High
Unassigned

Bug Description

Tried to add a container with:

  $ juju add-machine lxd:0

currently errors with:

$ juju show-machines
model: maas
machines:
  "0":
    juju-status:
      current: pending
      since: 16 Mar 2016 18:03:17Z
      version: 2.0-beta3.1
    dns-name: 10.17.20.215
    instance-id: /MAAS/api/1.0/nodes/node-562d8f0c-d8e4-11e5-b0d8-525400c38f67/
    machine-status:
      current: running
      message: Deployed
      since: 16 Mar 2016 18:03:30Z
    series: xenial
    containers:
      0/lxd/0:
        juju-status:
          current: error
          message: |
            Error adding alias ubuntu-xenial: not found
          since: 16 Mar 2016 18:19:05Z
        instance-id: pending
        machine-status:
          current: provisioning error
          message: |
            Creating container: Error adding alias ubuntu-xenial: not found
          since: 16 Mar 2016 18:19:04Z
        series: xenial
    hardware: arch=amd64 cpu-cores=1 mem=1024M
    controller-member-status: has-vote

A workaround is to run the following on the machine node:

  $ lxd-images import ubuntu --alias ubuntu-xenial xenial

which results in an alias name in the following output:

ubuntu@maas19-node2:~$ lxc image list
+---------------+--------------+--------+---------------------------------------------+--------+----------+------------------------------+
| ALIAS | FINGERPRINT | PUBLIC | DESCRIPTION | ARCH | SIZE | UPLOAD DATE |
+---------------+--------------+--------+---------------------------------------------+--------+----------+------------------------------+
| ubuntu-xenial | 618ab2ddf554 | no | ubuntu 16.04 LTS amd64 (beta1) (20160223.1) | x86_64 | 139.53MB | Mar 16, 2016 at 6:43pm (UTC) |
+---------------+--------------+--------+---------------------------------------------+--------+----------+------------------------------+

Tags: 2.0-count
Changed in juju-core:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Critical
milestone: none → 2.0-beta3
Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

Can you tell us the git version of your Juju? We've landed several patches recently that automatically do the import of images from cloud-images.ubuntu.com

Revision history for this message
Andrew McDermott (frobware) wrote :

 07693b816c207bc6e3fa9d7dd3f76784a695908e on maas-spaces-multi-nic-containers. This is a little behind master.

Revision history for this message
Andrew McDermott (frobware) wrote :

This is no longer an issue for me on the maas-spaces-multi-nic-containers-with-master branch at commit:

  5ade2a6117aae4be18356548f4e25453df2f1afe

Changed in juju-core:
status: Triaged → Incomplete
Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
Changed in juju-core:
milestone: 2.0-beta3 → 2.0-beta4
tags: added: 2.0-count
Changed in juju-core:
milestone: 2.0-beta4 → none
Curtis Hovey (sinzui)
Changed in juju-core:
importance: Critical → High
Revision history for this message
Launchpad Janitor (janitor) wrote :

[Expired for juju-core because there has been no activity for 60 days.]

Changed in juju-core:
status: Incomplete → Expired
Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

I just ran into this with juju 2.0.3 on Xenial.

My first guess is that I *do* have an image with alias ubuntu-xenial already, however, because we prefer the "upstream" definition of container images, we are downloading a replacement, but then telling LXD to use the alias which collides with the existing alias.

This is with LXD 2.8 from xenial backports.

Its possible that https://github.com/juju/juju/pull/6970 fixes this, as I'm currently explicitly testing 2.0.3.

Revision history for this message
John A Meinel (jameinel) wrote :

It looks like one possible trigger for this, is that I was using "release" as my 'ubuntu-xenial' but conjure-up triggers us to use "daily" which would be a different source, and thus more likely to trigger this, as otherwise we're likely to already have the same thing as upstream as we do "auto-update".

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.