Skip to content

Improvement/UI : Cloudstack Should validate if OOBM is enabled before enabling HA on the KVM host #13605

Description

@kiranchavala

problem

Cloudstack should validate if OOBM is enabled before enabling HA on the KVM host

versions

ACS 4.22.1

The steps to reproduce the bug

Currently there are 2 type os HA Host ha and vm ha.

Many users think by enabling host ha they achieve vm ha also

Currently, the host ha can be enabled without cross checking if the OOBM is enabled

https://cloudstack.apache.org/api/apidocs-4.22/apis/enableHAForHost.html

Image Image

OOBM

Image Image

Cloudstack should not allow to enable host ha if the OOBM is not enabled or configured

What to do about it?

We can check if oobm is enabled for the host via the api and provide a pop up to the admin user to enable it they try to enable host ha

https://cloudstack.apache.org/api/apidocs-4.22/apis/listHosts.html

Cloudstack should not allow to enable host ha if the OOBM is not enabled or configured

Ref

https://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/4.22.1.0/adminguide/hosts.html#out-of-band-management
https://docs.cloudstack.apache.org/en/4.21.0.0/adminguide/reliability.html#ha-enabled-hosts

https://www.shapeblue.com/host-ha-for-kvm-hosts-in-cloudstack/

Activity

  1. Chinmay048 commented on Jul 19, 2026

    @Chinmay048
    Contributor

    I would like to work on this UI improvement. Here is my proposed implementation plan:

    1. Frontend (Vue.js UI): Intercept the enableHA / configureHAForHost action in the host management view. Before dispatching the API call, inspect the host's Out-of-Band Management (OOBM) status (outofbandmanagement.enabled / power state).
    2. User Experience: If OOBM is not enabled or configured on a KVM host, prevent the action and display a confirmation/warning modal instructing the admin to configure OOBM first.
    3. Backend Validation (Defense-in-Depth): Ensure ConfigureHAForHostCmd / HAConfigManagerImpl also performs a server-side check so the API gracefully rejects HA enablement on KVM hosts lacking OOBM configuration.
  2. added theissue type on Jul 20, 2026
  3. DaanHoogland commented on Jul 20, 2026

    @DaanHoogland
    Contributor

    @kiranchavala @Chinmay048 , is this applicable to older versions?

  4. added this to the 4.22.2 milestone on Jul 27, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

Type

Projects

Relationships

None yet

Development

No branches or pull requests

Issue actions