Bug 1101270

Summary: quota a little bit lower than max LONG fails
Product: [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Gluster Storage Reporter: Martin Kudlej <mkudlej>
Component: quotaAssignee: Vijaikumar Mallikarjuna <vmallika>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Anil Shah <ashah>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: low    
Version: 2.1CC: annair, bmohanra, nsathyan, rhs-bugs, smohan, storage-qa-internal, vagarwal, vbellur, vmallika
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: RHGS 3.1.0   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: gluster-3.7.0-2.el6rhs Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Previously, setting a quota limit value between 9223372036854775800 to 9223372036854775807, which was close to the supported value of 9223372036854775807 would fail. With this fix, setting the quota limit value between 0 - 9223372036854775807 is successful.
 Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 1212791 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-07-29 04:31:57 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: 1103971    
Bug Blocks: 1202842, 1212791, 1223636    

Description Martin Kudlej 2014-05-26 13:54:36 UTC 
Description of problem:
Valid error:
$ gluster volume quota HadoopVol limit-usage /tmp/test2 9223372036854775807
quota command failed : Hard-limit 9223372036854775807 is greater than 9223372036854775807bytes. Please set a smaller limit.

Bug:
gluster volume quota HadoopVol limit-usage /tmp/test2 9223372036854775800
quota command failed : Hard-limit 9223372036854775800 is greater than 9223372036854775807bytes. Please set a smaller limit.

I understand that this is just theoretical value for limit-usage so max value for limit-usage should be changed or user should be able to set it up.


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
glusterfs-3.4.0.44rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
glusterfs-fuse-3.4.0.44rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
glusterfs-geo-replication-3.4.0.44rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
glusterfs-libs-3.4.0.44rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
glusterfs-server-3.4.0.44rhs-1.el6rhs.x86_64
python-rhsm-1.8.17-1.el6_4.x86_64
redhat-storage-logos-60.0.17-1.el6rhs.noarch
rhs-hadoop-2.3.0-6.noarch
rhs-hadoop-install-1_10-1.el6rhs.noarch

How reproducible:
100%

Actual results:
It is not able to set up limit-usage to LONG.MAX - few bytes even if it is advertised in error message.

Expected results:
Maximum number for limit-usage will be lower so it can be applied or functionality will allow to set LONG.MAX - 1.
Comment 2 Vijaikumar Mallikarjuna 2015-03-27 08:48:08 UTC 
Patch submitted upstream: http://review.gluster.org/#/c/10022/
Comment 4 Anil Shah 2015-05-28 11:27:34 UTC 
[root@darkknight ~]# gluster v quota vol0 limit-usage / 9223372036854775700
volume quota : success
[root@darkknight ~]# gluster v quota vol0 list
                  Path                   Hard-limit Soft-limit   Used  Available  Soft-limit exceeded? Hard-limit exceeded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/                                        8192.0PB       80%      12.0KB 8192.0PB              No                   No


[root@darkknight ~]# gluster v quota vol0 list
                  Path                   Hard-limit Soft-limit   Used  Available  Soft-limit exceeded? Hard-limit exceeded?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
/                                        8192.0PB       80%      12.0KB 8192.0PB              No                   No
/test                                    819.2PB       80%      0Bytes 819.2PB              No                   No

Verified this bugs on glusterfs 3.7.0 built.
marking this bugs as verified.
Comment 5 Bhavana 2015-07-15 11:12:25 UTC 
Hi Vijai,

The doc text is updated. Please review the same and share your technical review comments. If it looks ok, then sign-off on the same.

Regards,
Bhavana
Comment 6 Vijaikumar Mallikarjuna 2015-07-15 11:23:09 UTC 
Doc-text looks good to me
Comment 8 errata-xmlrpc 2015-07-29 04:31:57 UTC 
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/RHSA-2015-1495.html