starred/netbox
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox.git synced 2026-01-11 21:10:29 +01:00
Code Issues 273 Packages Projects Releases 10 Wiki Activity

no cluster list with a large number of virtual servers #11313

New Issue
Closed
opened 2025-12-29 21:43:25 +01:00 by adam · 9 comments
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:25 +01:00
Owner
Copy Link

Originally created by @someconservator on GitHub (Jun 23, 2025).

Deployment Type

Self-hosted

NetBox Version

v4.2.2

Python Version

3.11

Steps to Reproduce

add a large number of virtual servers (for ex 100К)

  1. select .../virtualization/virtual-machines/
  2. select Filters
  3. click inside Cluster box.
  4. see "No results found"

Image

Image

Expected Behavior

list of clusters

Observed Behavior

no list of clusters

Originally created by @someconservator on GitHub (Jun 23, 2025). ### Deployment Type Self-hosted ### NetBox Version v4.2.2 ### Python Version 3.11 ### Steps to Reproduce add a large number of virtual servers (for ex 100К) 1. select .../virtualization/virtual-machines/ 2. select Filters 3. click inside Cluster box. 4. see "No results found" ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/b518ee29-a066-47d4-912c-3c380d0de5d5) ![Image](https://github.com/user-attachments/assets/804d8de6-cfb4-4502-a8c2-2d13f916aa0e) ### Expected Behavior list of clusters ### Observed Behavior no list of clusters
adam added the type: bug label 2025-12-29 21:43:25 +01:00
adam closed this issue 2025-12-29 21:43:25 +01:00
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025):

Thank you for opening a bug report, @someconservator . Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient for someone else to attempt to reproduce the reported behavior. Each bug report must include detailed steps that someone else can follow on a clean, empty NetBox installation to reproduce the exact problem you're experiencing.

These instructions should include the creation of any involved objects, any configuration changes, and complete accounting of the actions being taken. Be sure that your report does not reference data on the public NetBox demo, as that is subject to change at any time by an outside party and cannot be relied upon for bug reports.

Additionally, I note that this is reported against v4.2.2. Please verify the behavior in the current release (v4.3.2).

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025): Thank you for opening a bug report, @someconservator . Unfortunately, the information you have provided is not sufficient for someone else to attempt to reproduce the reported behavior. Each bug report must include detailed steps that someone else can follow on a clean, empty NetBox installation to reproduce the exact problem you're experiencing. These instructions should include the creation of any involved objects, any configuration changes, and complete accounting of the actions being taken. Be sure that your report does not reference data on the public NetBox demo, as that is subject to change at any time by an outside party and cannot be relied upon for bug reports. Additionally, I note that this is reported against v4.2.2. Please verify the behavior in the current release (v4.3.2).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:26 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025):

O! Sorry! Additional steps:
a) the respective clusters mast be created.
b) most of those 100K+ servers must be associated with one of them.

Also, we can't repeat this error on the latest working version yet due to the large number of netbox users who take a long time to approve upgrades. and i'm afraid we'll always be behind. i reported this just in case, suddenly nothing has changed in this place in the new versions. Just reported what I could. Maybe it will be useful...

By the way, reducing the number of servers predictably removed the problem, so I believe it is somehow related to the ORM and and presumably with the fact that netbox makes here its request not just for clusters, but also for all servers associated with them.

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jun 24, 2025): O! Sorry! Additional steps: a) the respective clusters mast be created. b) most of those 100K+ servers must be associated with one of them. Also, we can't repeat this error on the latest working version yet due to the large number of netbox users who take a long time to approve upgrades. and i'm afraid we'll always be behind. i reported this just in case, suddenly nothing has changed in this place in the new versions. Just reported what I could. Maybe it will be useful... By the way, reducing the number of servers predictably removed the problem, so I believe it is somehow related to the ORM and and presumably with the fact that netbox makes here its request not just for clusters, but also for all servers associated with them.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 26, 2025):

@someconservator could you please use your browser's development tools or some other tooling to inspect the API request and confirm whether it is returning a valid response?

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jun 26, 2025): @someconservator could you please use your browser's development tools or some other tooling to inspect the API request and confirm whether it is returning a valid response?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2025):

Request URL
https://gs-ltisntbox02.isb/api/virtualization/clusters/?brief=true&limit=100
Request Method
GET
Status Code
504 Gateway Time-out

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jun 27, 2025): Request URL https://gs-ltisntbox02.isb/api/virtualization/clusters/?brief=true&limit=100 Request Method GET Status Code 504 Gateway Time-out
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jul 14, 2025):

@someconservator , this sounds like an issue with the local configuration of your NetBox instance, as now gateway is in use in the core project and should never return a 504.

I'm going to close this as wontfix, but you might want to post in the discussion forum with more details about your setup and see if someone in the community can assist.

@jnovinger commented on GitHub (Jul 14, 2025): @someconservator , this sounds like an issue with the local configuration of your NetBox instance, as now gateway is in use in the core project and should never return a 504. I'm going to close this as wontfix, but you might want to [post in the discussion forum](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/new?category=help-wanted) with more details about your setup and see if someone in the community can assist.
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:31 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2025):

as soon as I reduce the number of records in the database, the error disappears. could you suggest how this might be related to local netbox configuration?

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2025): as soon as I reduce the number of records in the database, the error disappears. could you suggest how this might be related to local netbox configuration?
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2025):

You likely need to extend the maximum request time configured for your WSGI server. For further assistance, please start a discussion.

@jeremystretch commented on GitHub (Jul 18, 2025): You likely need to extend the maximum request time configured for your WSGI server. For further assistance, please start a [discussion](https://github.com/netbox-community/netbox/discussions/new?category=help-wanted).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2025):

Yes, I agree, it can de done, but don't you think, Jeremy, that the tying the list of virtualization clusters to the number of instances they contain is a bit excessive in the context of filter construction? The user wants to limit the list of instances by selecting a cluster, but instead implicitly gets the whole insance list and forced to wait a long time, while at filter construction time, all one needs is a simple list from the cluster table (well, maybe more precisely, the cluster class in Django terms).

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 20, 2025): Yes, I agree, it can de done, but don't you think, Jeremy, that the tying the list of virtualization clusters to the number of instances they contain is a bit excessive in the context of filter construction? The user wants to limit the list of instances by selecting a cluster, but instead implicitly gets the whole insance list and forced to wait a long time, while at filter construction time, all one needs is a simple list from the cluster table (well, maybe more precisely, the cluster class in Django terms).
adam commented 2025-12-29 21:43:32 +01:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 2025):

Again, let's assume we have 200K (or even 500) servers instead of 100K. How much should we increase the timeout, add RAM to the server, and ask the user to wait for a response each time? In theory, choosing a cluster when constructing a filter for VMs should be a short time operation...

@someconservator commented on GitHub (Jul 21, 2025): Again, let's assume we have 200K (or even 500) servers instead of 100K. How much should we increase the timeout, add RAM to the server, and ask the user to wait for a response each time? In theory, choosing a cluster when constructing a filter for VMs should be a short time operation...
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
beta
breaking change
complexity: high
complexity: low
complexity: medium
needs milestone
netbox
pending closure
plugin candidate
pull-request
Mirrored from GitHub Pull Request
 severity: high
severity: low
severity: medium
status: accepted
status: backlog
status: blocked
status: duplicate
status: needs owner
status: needs triage
status: revisions needed
status: under review
topic: GraphQL
topic: Internationalization
topic: OpenAPI
topic: UI/UX
topic: cabling
topic: event rules
topic: htmx navigation
topic: industrialization
topic: migrations
topic: plugins
topic: scripts
topic: templating
topic: testing
type: bug
type: deprecation
type: documentation
type: feature
type: housekeeping
type: translation
No Label type: bug
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
adam
No Assignees
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: starred/netbox#11313
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?