Bug 1133938
Summary: | SD inactive after 2nd extension (with already added LUN) | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager | Reporter: | Julio Entrena Perez <jentrena> |
Component: | ovirt-engine | Assignee: | Daniel Erez <derez> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Elad <ebenahar> |
Severity: | high | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | high | ||
Version: | 3.3.0 | CC: | acanan, amureini, derez, ebenahar, ecohen, iheim, jentrena, lpeer, mlipchuk, pdwyer, rbalakri, Rhev-m-bugs, scohen, tnisan, yeylon |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened, Triaged |
Target Release: | 3.5.0 | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | storage | ||
Fixed In Version: | ovirt-engine-3.5.0_rc2 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-02-11 18:08:42 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: |
Description
Julio Entrena Perez
2014-08-26 13:33:17 UTC
Hi Julio, when the customer tried the second extension of the Storage Domain, did he get any warning that the LUN was being used by a VG (see warning example at [1]) Since we can not be sure if the PV is currently being used by another user or it is already un-relevant, the GUI should warn the user before overriding this certain PV. [1] This operation might be unrecoverable and destructive! The following LUNs are already in use: - 3600144f09dbd050000004ddcc2550027 (Used by VG: p6GoVe-0CHV-Qoh5-zlVZ-SWpa-vabz-iPBAu1)? Daniel - Can this be related to bug 955661 ? (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #6) > Daniel - Can this be related to bug 955661 ? Yes, seems to be a similar issue. We should check if the described scenario can be reproduced on a recent build. (In reply to Daniel Erez from comment #7) > (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #6) > > Daniel - Can this be related to bug 955661 ? > > Yes, seems to be a similar issue. We should check if the described scenario > can be reproduced on a recent build. Please do, and close as a duplicate if it really is. (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #8) > (In reply to Daniel Erez from comment #7) > > (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #6) > > > Daniel - Can this be related to bug 955661 ? > > > > Yes, seems to be a similar issue. We should check if the described scenario > > can be reproduced on a recent build. > Please do, and close as a duplicate if it really is. Couldn't reproduce the described scenario on latest 3.5 build. Marking as duplicate. *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 955661 *** (In reply to Daniel Erez from comment #9) > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 955661 *** Bug 955661 reads: "Happens only when force overriding LUN when extending storage domain" But as per comment 1 that's not the case in support case 01179519: Thread-270623::INFO::2014-08-22 15:04:30,348::logUtils::44::dispatcher::(wrapper) Run and protect: extendStorageDomain(sdUUID='0d0c9197-d494-4c95-b07d-cf0ac85ec9f8', spUUID='6a02ed2b-2fc1-45e7-8980-c53a720b180c', guids=['200173800642a0e25'], force=False, options=None) so re-opening this BZ and re-attaching this case to it, please review. (In reply to Julio Entrena Perez from comment #10) > (In reply to Daniel Erez from comment #9) > > > > *** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 955661 *** > > Bug 955661 reads: > > "Happens only when force overriding LUN when extending storage domain" > > But as per comment 1 that's not the case in support case 01179519: > > Thread-270623::INFO::2014-08-22 > 15:04:30,348::logUtils::44::dispatcher::(wrapper) Run and protect: > extendStorageDomain(sdUUID='0d0c9197-d494-4c95-b07d-cf0ac85ec9f8', > spUUID='6a02ed2b-2fc1-45e7-8980-c53a720b180c', guids=['200173800642a0e25'], > force=False, options=None) > > so re-opening this BZ and re-attaching this case to it, please review. Correct, missed it. The underlined issue seems to be the same; i.e. the same patch resolved both scenarios (couldn't reproduce on latest 3.5 build). But since the scenarios are a bit different, moving to modified for re-verification. How did you do it? via rest api? verified using vt4 Luns that in use are greyed out. 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-2015-0158.html |