Bug 700804

Summary: Cannot change "Number of spares" in RAID until "RAID Level" is modified
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Jan Stodola <jstodola>
Component: anacondaAssignee: Ales Kozumplik <akozumpl>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Release Test Team <release-test-team>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 6.1CC: atodorov, jzeleny
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard: patch
Fixed In Version: anaconda-13.21.118-1 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
: 729716 (view as bug list) Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-12-06 10:32:51 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 670159, 705163, 729716    
Attachments:
Description Flags
"Numer of spares" is disabled
none
screenshot raid dialog none

Description Jan Stodola 2011-04-29 13:09:29 UTC
Created attachment 495774 [details]
"Numer of spares" is disabled

Description of problem:
When trying to create a RAID device with some spare members, anaconda doesn't allow to change the "Number of spares" field. (see attached screenshot).

To be able to change the number of spares, user has to change the "RAID Level" field first (RAID1 to RAID5 and then back to RAID1). After this step, user is able to modify the spares field.

Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
RHEL6.1-20110427.0
anaconda-13.21.115-1.el6

How reproducible:
always

Steps to Reproduce:
1. run installation in graphical mode
2. select Custom partitioning
3. create some RAID partitions (for example 5)
4. Try to create new RAID1 device using all the RAID partitions, change number of spares

Actual results:
Cannot modify number of spares

Expected results:
Number of spares is editable

Comment 1 Ales Kozumplik 2011-05-27 14:42:20 UTC
patch for master is awaiting review:

https://www.redhat.com/archives/anaconda-devel-list/2011-May/msg00243.html

Comment 2 Ales Kozumplik 2011-06-01 07:56:02 UTC
Fixed on master: 3c53d72b4a8924a52d8657ca3c3aa18528d55d2f

Comment 3 Ales Kozumplik 2011-06-10 08:15:15 UTC
Fixed by 15f1c2dfc663ce664015610517b7dd973bb2a262.

Comment 5 Alexander Todorov 2011-08-09 13:51:47 UTC
Created attachment 517418 [details]
screenshot raid dialog

I don't think this is fully fixed. As you can see on the attached screenshot the number of spares field is editable but it allows me to select more spares than I have raid partitions. 

In this case I have selected 2 raid members and 3 spares which is invalid. Anaconda lets me save this config and after writing changes to disk it dies with
ERROR: mdadm: invalid number of raid devices

Comment 6 Alexander Todorov 2011-08-09 13:52:22 UTC
Moved back to ASSIGNED. Tested with anaconda-13.21.126.

Comment 7 Ales Kozumplik 2011-08-10 15:28:47 UTC
(In reply to comment #5)
> Created attachment 517418 [details]
> screenshot raid dialog
> 
> I don't think this is fully fixed. As you can see on the attached screenshot
> the number of spares field is editable but it allows me to select more spares
> than I have raid partitions. 
> 
> In this case I have selected 2 raid members and 3 spares which is invalid.
> Anaconda lets me save this config and after writing changes to disk it dies
> with
> ERROR: mdadm: invalid number of raid devices

I was able to reproduce this exact scenario in 6.1 so this is not a regression. It is also a different problem because the underlying library simply doesn't tell us the correct upper limit on the number of spares depending on the number of raid devices used. Please open a different bug for that, CC me and we can target it for 6.3.

Comment 8 Alexander Todorov 2011-08-10 15:38:39 UTC
Moving to VERIFIED and cloning for the other issue.

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2011-12-06 10:32:51 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.

http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2011-1565.html