Back to bug 2005919
| Who | When | What | Removed | Added |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-21 00:38:55 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(prsurve) | |
| Pratik Surve | 2021-09-21 05:50:20 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(prsurve) | |
| Pratik Surve | 2021-09-21 05:51:07 UTC | Summary | [DR] when Relocate action is performed rbd image is not getting deleted on seconday site | [DR] when Relocate action is performed and the Application is deleted completely rbd image is not getting deleted on seconday site |
| Pratik Surve | 2021-09-21 05:52:36 UTC | Comment | 0 | updated |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-21 10:54:02 UTC | Link ID | Github RamenDR/ramen/issues/264 | |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-21 10:55:34 UTC | Status | NEW | ASSIGNED |
| krishnaram Karthick | 2021-09-21 14:32:13 UTC | CC | kramdoss | |
| RHEL Program Management | 2021-09-21 14:32:21 UTC | Target Release | --- | OCS 4.9.0 |
| James Espy | 2021-09-21 15:09:11 UTC | CC | jespy | |
| Madhu Rajanna | 2021-09-22 15:07:11 UTC | CC | mrajanna | |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-22 17:00:12 UTC | CC | idryomov | |
| Flags | needinfo?(prsurve) needinfo?(prsurve) | |||
| Pratik Surve | 2021-09-24 13:25:24 UTC | CC | jmishra | |
| Flags | needinfo?(prsurve) needinfo?(prsurve) | |||
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-24 13:35:10 UTC | Component | unclassified | ceph |
| Assignee | srangana | sostapov | ||
| CC | madam | |||
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-24 13:36:18 UTC | CC | srangana, sunkumar | |
| Rejy M Cyriac | 2021-09-26 20:23:24 UTC | Target Release | OCS 4.9.0 | --- |
| Rejy M Cyriac | 2021-09-26 20:25:16 UTC | Product | Red Hat OpenShift Container Storage | Red Hat OpenShift Data Foundation |
| Component | ceph | ceph | ||
| CC | muagarwa | |||
| RHEL Program Management | 2021-09-26 20:28:16 UTC | Target Release | --- | ODF 4.9.0 |
| Scott Ostapovicz | 2021-09-28 13:51:31 UTC | Assignee | sostapov | idryomov |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-28 15:36:35 UTC | Blocks | 2008587 | |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-09-28 15:37:38 UTC | Summary | [DR] when Relocate action is performed and the Application is deleted completely rbd image is not getting deleted on seconday site | [DR] [Tracker for BZ #2008587] when Relocate action is performed and the Application is deleted completely rbd image is not getting deleted on seconday site |
| Veera Raghava Reddy | 2021-10-06 10:43:59 UTC | Summary | [DR] [Tracker for BZ #2008587] when Relocate action is performed and the Application is deleted completely rbd image is not getting deleted on seconday site | [DR] [Tracker for BZ #2008587] when Relocate action is performed and the Application is deleted completely rbd image is not getting deleted on secondary site |
| CC | vereddy | |||
| Mudit Agarwal | 2021-10-21 12:04:48 UTC | Doc Type | If docs needed, set a value | Known Issue |
| Mudit Agarwal | 2021-10-21 12:05:32 UTC | Blocks | 2011326 | |
| RHEL Program Management | 2021-10-26 07:26:44 UTC | Target Release | ODF 4.9.0 | ODF 4.10.0 |
| Elad | 2021-11-03 15:12:25 UTC | CC | ebenahar | |
| Deepika Upadhyay | 2021-11-08 05:03:39 UTC | CC | dupadhya | |
| Mudit Agarwal | 2021-11-16 13:34:11 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(srangana) | |
| Shyamsundar | 2021-12-07 12:34:17 UTC | Doc Text | Cause: - Deleting a DR protected workload may leak RBD images on the secondary DR cluster Consequence: - Deleted images would occupy space on the secondary cluster Workaround (if any): - Workaround involves using toolbox pod to detect and cleanup images on the secondary that are no longer in use for DR ptotection Result: - Workaround would ensure space reclamation on the secondary cluster | |
| Flags | needinfo?(srangana) | |||
| Sidhant Agrawal | 2021-12-08 09:20:37 UTC | CC | sagrawal | |
| Olive Lakra | 2021-12-09 06:12:10 UTC | Doc Text | Cause: - Deleting a DR protected workload may leak RBD images on the secondary DR cluster Consequence: - Deleted images would occupy space on the secondary cluster Workaround (if any): - Workaround involves using toolbox pod to detect and cleanup images on the secondary that are no longer in use for DR ptotection Result: - Workaround would ensure space reclamation on the secondary cluster | .Relocate action deletes the application completely but RADOS block device image does not get deleted on secondary site Deleting a disaster recovery (DR) protected workload may leak RADOS block device (RBD) images on the secondary DR cluster. The deleted images would then occupy space on the secondary cluster. To resolve this issue, use a toolbox pod to detect and clean up the images on the secondary cluster that are no longer in use for DR protection. This workaround ensures space reclamation on the secondary cluster. |
| CC | olakra | |||
| Flags | needinfo?(srangana) | |||
| Shyamsundar | 2021-12-09 12:52:29 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(srangana) | needinfo?(olakra) |
| Olive Lakra | 2021-12-09 13:25:11 UTC | Doc Text | .Relocate action deletes the application completely but RADOS block device image does not get deleted on secondary site Deleting a disaster recovery (DR) protected workload may leak RADOS block device (RBD) images on the secondary DR cluster. The deleted images would then occupy space on the secondary cluster. To resolve this issue, use a toolbox pod to detect and clean up the images on the secondary cluster that are no longer in use for DR protection. This workaround ensures space reclamation on the secondary cluster. | .Deleting a protected application that has been failed over and later relocated does not delete the RADOS block device image on the secondary or failover site Deleting a disaster recovery (DR) protected workload may leak RADOS block device (RBD) images on the secondary DR cluster. The deleted images would then occupy space on the secondary cluster. To resolve this issue, use a toolbox pod to detect and clean up the images on the secondary cluster that are no longer in use for DR protection. This workaround ensures space reclamation on the secondary cluster. |
| Flags | needinfo?(olakra) | needinfo?(srangana) | ||
| Shyamsundar | 2021-12-13 14:15:40 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(srangana) | |
| Shyamsundar | 2022-01-06 12:36:29 UTC | CC | apolak | |
| Sunil Kumar Acharya | 2022-01-07 14:07:39 UTC | Blocks | 2008587, 2011326 | |
| CC | sheggodu | |||
| Depends On | 2008587, 2011326 | |||
| Rejy M Cyriac | 2022-01-07 15:09:57 UTC | QA Contact | ratamir | ebenahar |
| Mudit Agarwal | 2022-01-25 14:25:06 UTC | Doc Type | Known Issue | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text | .Deleting a protected application that has been failed over and later relocated does not delete the RADOS block device image on the secondary or failover site Deleting a disaster recovery (DR) protected workload may leak RADOS block device (RBD) images on the secondary DR cluster. The deleted images would then occupy space on the secondary cluster. To resolve this issue, use a toolbox pod to detect and clean up the images on the secondary cluster that are no longer in use for DR protection. This workaround ensures space reclamation on the secondary cluster. | |||
| Status | ASSIGNED | MODIFIED | ||
| Mudit Agarwal | 2022-01-27 13:01:55 UTC | Fixed In Version | 4.10.0-124 | |
| Status | MODIFIED | ON_QA | ||
| Ilya Dryomov | 2022-01-27 14:13:45 UTC | Depends On | 2047279 | |
| Elad | 2022-02-15 15:09:14 UTC | QA Contact | ebenahar | sraghave |
| Sidhant Agrawal | 2022-02-28 08:40:07 UTC | Status | ON_QA | VERIFIED |
| QA Contact | sraghave | sagrawal | ||
| krishnaram Karthick | 2022-03-02 16:24:28 UTC | Status | VERIFIED | CLOSED |
| Resolution | --- | WONTFIX | ||
| Last Closed | 2022-03-02 16:24:28 UTC | |||
| krishnaram Karthick | 2022-03-10 05:08:41 UTC | Resolution | WONTFIX | --- |
| Status | CLOSED | ON_QA | ||
| Keywords | Reopened | |||
| krishnaram Karthick | 2022-03-10 05:09:00 UTC | Status | ON_QA | VERIFIED |
| Mudit Agarwal | 2022-04-05 07:19:47 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(idryomov) | |
| Ilya Dryomov | 2022-04-05 09:49:29 UTC | Flags | needinfo?(idryomov) | |
| Doc Text | Cause: A bug in rbd-mirror daemon prevented image deletion events from being properly propagated to the secondary cluster. Consequence: RBD images deleted by the user on the primary cluster would not be consequently deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. Fix: The bug was addressed -- the cases that weren't handled are now properly handled. Result: RBD images deleted by the user on the primary cluster are consequently deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. |
|||
| Shilpi Sharma | 2022-04-11 08:49:09 UTC | CC | shilpsha | |
| Doc Text | Cause: A bug in rbd-mirror daemon prevented image deletion events from being properly propagated to the secondary cluster. Consequence: RBD images deleted by the user on the primary cluster would not be consequently deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. Fix: The bug was addressed -- the cases that weren't handled are now properly handled. Result: RBD images deleted by the user on the primary cluster are consequently deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. | .Image deletion events on secondary clusters are handled correctly Previously, when RBD images were deleted by the user on the primary cluster would not consequently be deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. It happened due to an error that occurred in the rbd-mirror daemon that prevented image deletion events from being properly propagated to the secondary cluster. With this update, RBD images are handled properly on both primary and secondary cluster when deleted. |
||
| Shilpi Sharma | 2022-04-11 09:31:28 UTC | Doc Text | .Image deletion events on secondary clusters are handled correctly Previously, when RBD images were deleted by the user on the primary cluster would not consequently be deleted by rbd-mirror daemon on the secondary cluster. It happened due to an error that occurred in the rbd-mirror daemon that prevented image deletion events from being properly propagated to the secondary cluster. With this update, RBD images are handled properly on both primary and secondary cluster when deleted. | .Image deletion events on secondary clusters are handled correctly Previously, when RBD images were deleted by the user on the primary cluster would not consequently be deleted by `rbd-mirror daemon` on the secondary cluster. It happened due to an error that occurred in the rbd-mirror daemon that prevented image deletion events from being properly propagated to the secondary cluster. With this update, RBD images are handled properly on both primary and secondary cluster when deleted. |
| errata-xmlrpc | 2022-04-13 15:09:19 UTC | Status | VERIFIED | RELEASE_PENDING |
| errata-xmlrpc | 2022-04-13 18:49:43 UTC | Resolution | --- | ERRATA |
| Status | RELEASE_PENDING | CLOSED | ||
| Last Closed | 2022-03-02 16:24:28 UTC | 2022-04-13 18:49:43 UTC | ||
| errata-xmlrpc | 2022-04-13 18:50:26 UTC | Link ID | Red Hat Product Errata RHSA-2022:1372 | |
| Ramakrishnan Periyasamy | 2022-05-26 05:47:14 UTC | CC | rperiyas | |
| Keywords | AutomationBackLog | |||
| Elad | 2023-08-09 16:37:41 UTC | CC | odf-bz-bot |
Back to bug 2005919