Bug 1191594

Summary:	LVM RAID - Add support for 'raid0' segment type to lvm2 tools
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7	Reporter:	Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm>
Component:	lvm2	Assignee:	Heinz Mauelshagen <heinzm>
lvm2 sub component:	Mirroring and RAID	QA Contact:	cluster-qe <cluster-qe>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	Docs Contact:	Milan Navratil <mnavrati>
Severity:	unspecified
Priority:	unspecified	CC:	agk, cmarthal, coughlan, heinzm, jbrassow, mnavrati, msnitzer, nperic, prajnoha, prockai, slevine, zkabelac
Version:	7.2	Keywords:	FutureFeature, Tracking
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	7.3
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Release Note
Doc Text:	LVM2 tools now support the `raid0` segment type The `raid0` segment type is mandatory to support the Multiple Devices (MD) type reshaping from a `striped` layout using 'raid0' to 'raid5' and others, and to create native MD "raid0" striped logical volumes (LVs). Now, LVM2 supports segment types "raid0" and raid0_meta", that is native striping that the MD kernel runtime supports.	Story Points:	---
Clone Of:
Clones:	1390358 (view as bug list)		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-11-04 04:08:41 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:	1335861
Bug Blocks:	1189124, 1346081, 1390358

Description Heinz Mauelshagen 2015-02-11 14:53:10 UTC

Description of problem:
lvm2 is missing RAID0 support based on the MD RAID0 personality

How reproducible:
Always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. lvcreate --type raid0 -l1 -i2 -nr $VG
2.
3.

Actual results:
Error

Expected results:
Succeeds creating a reid0 mapping

Additional info:
lvm2 tools/lib need 'raid0' segment type added using a respective enhancement to the dm-raid target (see seperate kernel bz) which shall utilize the MD 'raid0' personality.
The mandatory allocation of internal metadata LVs (aka rmeta LVs) as with the already supported MD-based raid levels (RAID1/10/4/5/6) shall be optional, because the MD 'raid0' personality does _not_ require metadata devices unless a takeover from 'raid0' to 'raid5' is requested. The distinction between 'raid0' LVs with and without metadata LVs may be based on the segement type name (e.g. segment type name 'raid0' -> no internal metadata LVs vs. 'raid0_meta' -> allocate internal metadata LVs)

Comment 2 Jonathan Earl Brassow 2015-07-22 13:31:06 UTC

Didn't make 7.2 devel freeze.  Will include this with the reshaping patches for 7.3.

Comment 5 Alasdair Kergon 2016-07-06 00:28:53 UTC

Support for raid0 and raid0_meta segments included in 2.02.159.

Comment 7 Corey Marthaler 2016-07-29 20:09:43 UTC

All applicable raid test cases have been tried and passed on raid0, as well as in exclusive mode for both clvmd and lvmlockd mode.

3.10.0-480.el7.x86_64

lvm2-2.02.161-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
lvm2-libs-2.02.161-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
lvm2-cluster-2.02.161-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
device-mapper-1.02.131-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
device-mapper-libs-1.02.131-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
device-mapper-event-1.02.131-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
device-mapper-event-libs-1.02.131-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
device-mapper-persistent-data-0.6.3-1.el7    BUILT: Fri Jul 22 05:29:13 CDT 2016
cmirror-2.02.161-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016
sanlock-3.4.0-1.el7    BUILT: Fri Jun 10 11:41:03 CDT 2016
sanlock-lib-3.4.0-1.el7    BUILT: Fri Jun 10 11:41:03 CDT 2016
lvm2-lockd-2.02.161-3.el7    BUILT: Thu Jul 28 09:31:24 CDT 2016

Comment 8 Corey Marthaler 2016-08-15 23:15:44 UTC

bug 1367223 should really block this feature.

Comment 15 errata-xmlrpc 2016-11-04 04:08:41 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/RHBA-2016-1445.html