Configuring slbs stopped working with 32.0.0

cloudfoundry / bosh-alicloud-cpi-release

BOSH Alibaba CPI

Apache License 2.0

32 stars 20 forks source link

Configuring slbs stopped working with 32.0.0 #119

Closed friegger closed 3 years ago

friegger commented 3 years ago

With 32.0.0 using load balancer via VM extension does not work anymore. It works fine with 31.0.0. Potentially this is caused by https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/bosh-alicloud-cpi-release/pull/115 and/or https://github.com/cloudfoundry-incubator/bosh-alicloud-cpi-release/pull/114.

Also see docs https://bosh.io/docs/alicloud-cpi/#resource-pools. The formatting is broken by the way.

chushenmeshile commented 3 years ago

@friegger What problems do you encounter with 32.0.0 and why do you think 114 or 115 pr has problems

shaoyongfeng commented 3 years ago

Hi , following is a very simple code to reproduce this issue in cloud config, you define vm_extensions as below vm_extensions:

name: landscape_credhub_lb cloud_properties: slbs:
- (( .terraform.credhub_lb_id ))
name: landscape_uaa_lb cloud_properties: slbs:
- (( .terraform.uaa_lb_id )) The lb_ids are the output from terraform of a alicloud_slb resource: output "credhub_lb_id" { value = alicloud_slb.credhub-lb.id }

in your deployment manifest, just use above extension for your VM

name: vmname instances: ((instancesno)) vm_type: ((instance_type)) vm_extensions:
- landscape_credhub_lb stemcell: default

chushenmeshile commented 3 years ago

What are the errors you encountered during deployment

shaoyongfeng commented 3 years ago

the symptom is VM is not attached to LB as above

chushenmeshile commented 3 years ago

I'm sorry, I can't see the image content information, but I think it may be a parameter type conversion error. Maybe you need to convert the parameter type from string to int.

shaoyongfeng commented 3 years ago

Hi @chushenmeshile ， I don't understand what you mean. This issue only happens in new cpi version. there should be some changes in CPI which causes this issue. Do you try to reproduce it？

chushenmeshile commented 3 years ago

The parameter type has changed from string to int, and the default value has been cancelled. Therefore, I think there may be a problem with the data type you passed in the configuration file.

xiaozhu36 commented 3 years ago

HI @friegger I am sorry for the late reply. This issue has been fixed by #120 and it has been published in the release v33.0.0. Please have a check.