Bug 1067112
| Summary: | Unable to create striped raid on VGs with 1k extent sizes | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7 | Reporter: | Corey Marthaler <cmarthal> |
| Component: | lvm2 | Assignee: | Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm> |
| lvm2 sub component: | Mirroring and RAID | QA Contact: | cluster-qe <cluster-qe> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | low | ||
| Priority: | high | CC: | agk, dwysocha, heinzm, jbrassow, msnitzer, prajnoha, prockai, thornber, zkabelac |
| Version: | 7.0 | Keywords: | Triaged |
| Target Milestone: | rc | ||
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | x86_64 | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | lvm2-2.02.125-1.el7 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | 834050 | Environment: | |
| Last Closed: | 2015-11-19 12:45:18 UTC | Type: | Bug |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | 834050 | ||
| Bug Blocks: | |||
|
Comment 1
Corey Marthaler
2014-02-19 17:48:06 UTC
Seems like the smallest usable extent_size with raid is currently 256KB. With smaller extent size various calculation about raid metadata size are incorrect. (In reply to Zdenek Kabelac from comment #3) > Seems like the smallest usable extent_size with raid is currently 256KB. > With smaller extent size various calculation about raid metadata size are > incorrect. Even with calcuations fixed, the extent size can't got below PAGE_SIZE (i.e. typically 4KiB), because that's the minimum payload size per device for a RAID4/5/6 mapping. Yes - we have many limitation on minimal size. i.e. thin-pool metadata cannot be smaller then 2MB But we handle this requirement even with 1K extent size. Same needs to apply to raid target. Can we at least trap the error and report and error message? I think it is not that necessary to make this work, but it would be nice to fail gracefully. Fix verified in the latest rpms. 3.10.0-302.el7.x86_64 lvm2-2.02.126-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 lvm2-libs-2.02.126-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 lvm2-cluster-2.02.126-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 device-mapper-1.02.103-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 device-mapper-libs-1.02.103-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 device-mapper-event-1.02.103-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 device-mapper-event-libs-1.02.103-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 device-mapper-persistent-data-0.5.4-1.el7 BUILT: Fri Jul 17 08:56:22 CDT 2015 cmirror-2.02.126-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 sanlock-3.2.4-1.el7 BUILT: Fri Jun 19 12:48:49 CDT 2015 sanlock-lib-3.2.4-1.el7 BUILT: Fri Jun 19 12:48:49 CDT 2015 lvm2-lockd-2.02.126-1.el7 BUILT: Tue Jul 28 11:32:33 CDT 2015 [root@harding-03 ~]# lvcreate --type raid1 -m 1 -n raid_on_1Kextent_vg -L 60M raid_sanity Logical volume "raid_on_1Kextent_vg" created. [root@harding-03 ~]# lvcreate --type raid4 -i 3 -n raid_on_1Kextent_vg -L 60M raid_sanity Using default stripesize 64.00 KiB. The extent size in volume group raid_sanity is too small to support striped RAID volumes. [root@harding-03 ~]# lvcreate --type raid5 -i 3 -n raid_on_1Kextent_vg -L 60M raid_sanity Using default stripesize 64.00 KiB. The extent size in volume group raid_sanity is too small to support striped RAID volumes. [root@harding-03 ~]# lvcreate --type raid6 -i 3 -n raid_on_1Kextent_vg -L 60M raid_sanity Using default stripesize 64.00 KiB. The extent size in volume group raid_sanity is too small to support striped RAID volumes. [root@harding-03 ~]# lvcreate --type raid10 -i 3 -n raid_on_1Kextent_vg -L 60M raid_sanity Using default stripesize 64.00 KiB. The extent size in volume group raid_sanity is too small to support striped RAID volumes. 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. https://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2015-2147.html |