Bug 1053890
Summary: | PRD34 - [RFE] Update storage domain's LUNs sizes in DB after lun resize | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Sean Cohen <scohen> |
Component: | RFEs | Assignee: | Daniel Erez <derez> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Aharon Canan <acanan> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | unspecified | CC: | acathrow, amureini, bazulay, derez, dkelson, gklein, gwatson, iheim, jkt, jplorier, lpeer, mgoldboi, michele, mkalinin, sbonazzo, yeylon, zdover |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | FutureFeature |
Target Release: | 3.4.0 | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | storage | ||
Fixed In Version: | ovirt-3.4.0-beta2 | Doc Type: | Enhancement |
Doc Text: |
After a LUN has been expanded from the storage side, pvresize is now run in order to retrieve the correct storage domain volume group size.
|
Story Points: | --- |
Clone Of: | 961532 | Environment: | |
Last Closed: | 2014-06-09 15:08:56 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | Storage | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | 961532 | ||
Bug Blocks: | 1078909, 1092741, 1142926 |
Description
Sean Cohen
2014-01-15 22:39:01 UTC
Verified using 3.4 av2 TCMS run - https://tcms.engineering.redhat.com/run/118096 Please be aware that after expanding the lun from the storage side, we need to run pvresize to the new lun size to get the new SD (vg) size for example - ----------------- pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 125G /dev/mapper/3600601601282300056f0075c3f81e311 Since the problem described in this bug report should be resolved in a recent advisory, it has been closed with a resolution of ERRATA. For information on the advisory, and where to find the updated files, follow the link below. If the solution does not work for you, open a new bug report. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHSA-2014-0506.html (In reply to Aharon Canan from comment #1) > Verified using 3.4 av2 > TCMS run - https://tcms.engineering.redhat.com/run/118096 > > Please be aware that after expanding the lun from the storage side, we need > to run pvresize to the new lun size to get the new SD (vg) size > > for example - > ----------------- > pvresize --setphysicalvolumesize 125G > /dev/mapper/3600601601282300056f0075c3f81e311 The --setphysicalvolumesize is unneeded, no? Without that switch it will just match the PV to the size of the LUN. Hey, not clear to me what does this bug cover. Reading this: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609689#c42 Does it mean, that this bug only covers iscsi lun resize. I.e. when lun is resized for a VG for iscsi storage domain, storage domain size would be automatically adjusted in RHEV to match it? (In reply to Marina from comment #6) > Hey, not clear to me what does this bug cover. > Reading this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609689#c42 > > Does it mean, that this bug only covers iscsi lun resize. I.e. when lun is > resized for a VG for iscsi storage domain, storage domain size would be > automatically adjusted in RHEV to match it? Daniel, can you answer this please? (In reply to Marina from comment #6) > Hey, not clear to me what does this bug cover. > Reading this: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609689#c42 > > Does it mean, that this bug only covers iscsi lun resize. I.e. when lun is > resized for a VG for iscsi storage domain, storage domain size would be > automatically adjusted in RHEV to match it? Hi Marina, This bug addresses mismatch detection of LUN device size merely in the DB (for block storage domains). I.e. resize of the underlining storage should still be done manually (as mentioned in [1]). So the domain size would be automatically adjusted in DB after proper resizing of the PV (FC storage requires additional steps described in [2]). [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1053890#c1 [2] https://access.redhat.com/solutions/376873 Daniel, thanks. Do we ever plan automating the complete process? And what does this bug come to cover? https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609689#c42 (In reply to Marina from comment #9) > Daniel, thanks. > Do we ever plan automating the complete process? > > And what does this bug come to cover? > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=609689#c42 This bug is for automating the entire process. As we already doing the rescan step as part of [1], the rest should be basically invoking pvresize (and probably expose a means to specify new size for a lun/domain). Not sure about priority though (as the effort is not trivial). @Allon - what do you think? [1] http://gerrit.ovirt.org/#/c/34245/ |