Juju vSphere cloud provider does not support resource pools or folders with vsphere 6.5/6.7
Affects | Status | Importance | Assigned to | Milestone | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Canonical Juju |
Fix Released
|
High
|
Christian Muirhead |
Bug Description
Hi all,
Juju does not seem to handle the correct placement of machines into a Resource Pool or Folder on vSphere 6.5/6.7.
The cluster selection works, I.E if I have a data-center with multiple clusters in vSphere, I can choose which cluster to use, but placement within the cluster, I.E in a Folder or Resource Pool does not work.
Also, some of these constraints appear to be ignored as part of the bundle, an example is found here: https:/
My manual work around is to manually add the machines first, before deploying units and relationships, I.E:
ZONE="some-zone"
juju add-machine zone=$ZONE --constraints root-disk=50G --constraints cores=4 --constraints mem=16G
This may have been partially fixed by this: https:/
Instead, Juju places all of the VM(s) onto the same, single esx hypervisor within a cluster which means there is no HA placement of services.
vSphere versions tested: 6.5 and 6.7. I have an internal (Canonical) video showing the issue and a work around for a current customer.
Cheers,
- Calvin
summary: |
Juju vSphere cloud provider does not support resource pools or folders - in vsphere 6.5/6.7 + with vsphere 6.5/6.7 |
description: | updated |
Changed in juju: | |
status: | New → Triaged |
importance: | Undecided → High |
milestone: | none → 2.5.1 |
Changed in juju: | |
status: | Triaged → Incomplete |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.5.1 → 2.5.2 |
Changed in juju: | |
assignee: | nobody → Christian Muirhead (2-xtian) |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.5.2 → 2.5.3 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.5.3 → 2.5.4 |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.5.4 → 2.5.5 |
Changed in juju: | |
status: | In Progress → Fix Committed |
Changed in juju: | |
status: | Fix Committed → Fix Released |
Changed in juju: | |
milestone: | 2.5.6 → 2.5.7 |
Hi Calvin - I think supporting resource pools should be straightforward. Folders are a bit trickier because at the moment we use them to track controller/model hierarchy at the provider level (in other providers we use tags for this).
It depends how much control you want/need over this - if it's a matter of specifying a parent folder for the controller folder (and then the model folders still go inside that folder) then it's not a big change. Would that do what you want?