Bug 1341598

Summary:	Crush rule ids are not set as specified in the request instead takes the auto incremented one
Product:	[Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Ceph Storage	Reporter:	Nishanth Thomas <nthomas>
Component:	Calamari	Assignee:	Christina Meno <gmeno>
Calamari sub component:	Back-end	QA Contact:	Nishanth Thomas <nthomas>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	Docs Contact:
Severity:	medium
Priority:	unspecified	CC:	ceph-eng-bugs, hnallurv, kdreyer, nthomas, vakulkar
Version:	2.0
Target Milestone:	rc
Target Release:	2.0
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	calamari-server-1.4.1-1.el7cp	Doc Type:	If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-08-23 19:40:20 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:
Bug Blocks:	1339529, 1343229

Description Nishanth Thomas 2016-06-01 10:32:55 UTC

Description of problem:
Crush rule ids are not set as specified in the request instead takes the auto incremented one. The issue here is that the crush rule created becomes unusable

Expected results:
Make it auto incremented by default. User need not specify crush rule id in the crush rule creation request

Comment 2 Christina Meno 2016-06-02 15:36:14 UTC

the workaround is hard, USM has to guess what ceph will assign the ruleset id
one possibility is to relax the validation so that ruleset is not required on create

Comment 3 Nishanth Thomas 2016-06-04 10:40:16 UTC

I think that would be sufficient. Let the ruleset is autogenerated, which will solve the problem for us. The only thing to make sure is that, calamari gets the right ruleset and stores it.

Comment 4 Christina Meno 2016-06-08 22:57:31 UTC

I'm a little confused here:
ruleset has not been required in create or update since 5/18/16.


Nishanth is it that you want them to not be allowed during create or update since we don't honor them?

Comment 7 Harish NV Rao 2016-07-12 10:31:30 UTC

Moving this to verified state as Nishanth confirmed that the issue is fixed.

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2016-08-23 19:40:20 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-2016-1755.html

Comment 10 Red Hat Bugzilla 2023-09-14 23:59:37 UTC

The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 500 days