Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1192532

Summary: [6.4.z] HornetQ's Journal should be compatible with 4096 alignments
Product: [JBoss] JBoss Enterprise Application Platform 6 Reporter: Clebert Suconic <csuconic>
Component: HornetQAssignee: Clebert Suconic <csuconic>
Status: CLOSED EOL QA Contact: Miroslav Novak <mnovak>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 6.4.0CC: bbaranow, bmaxwell, cdewolf, csuconic, dandread, jdoyle, jmesnil, kkhan, msochure, msvehla, myarboro, rsvoboda
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2019-08-19 12:47:43 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:

Description Clebert Suconic 2015-02-13 16:02:53 UTC 
Description of problem:

When we first wrote the Journal the default alignment for the storage was 512. Now that disks are bigger the default is 4X bigger.


We have a KCS article where we tell users that this is a bug on ext4 and tell users to downgrade to ext3 which is not really true.


So, to couple with this better we should support 4096 alignments and cope with it through API without requiring extra configurations.
Comment 1 Clebert Suconic 2015-02-13 16:03:11 UTC 
I would like to propose this as a blocker for 6.4.0
Comment 2 Clebert Suconic 2015-02-13 16:04:37 UTC 
I don't have authority to set this as a blocker.. what's the protocol for such thing?
Comment 3 Dimitris Andreadis 2015-02-13 16:14:24 UTC 
I've just raised the triaging flags. You need to have your component upgrade ready to go by Feb/18th.
Comment 4 Clebert Suconic 2015-02-13 16:19:15 UTC 
Feb/19th? :)
Comment 7 Kabir Khan 2015-02-14 08:52:49 UTC 
It isn't clear to me if this changes the subsystem domain management APIs or not. If it does it can't come into 6.4.1, if doesn't it can.
Comment 15 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 02:54:54 UTC 
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days