Created attachment 854987 [details] logs and screenshots Description of problem: If I create a preallocated disk the actual and virtual size are the same. if I extend that disk, the virtual size changes but the actual size remains the same - so the extend is always done as thin provision instead of extending by selected allocation by the user. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): ovirt-engine-backend-3.4.0-0.5.beta1.el6.noarch How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. create a preallocated 3 GB disk 2. extend the disk by 4 GB 3. Actual results: although the disk is preallocated, the extend is done as thin provision Expected results: if the disk is preallocated we need to make sure that the extend will be the same. Additional info: Please note, this might be related to bug: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057622
Setting target release to current version for consideration and review. please do not push non-RFE bugs to an undefined target release to make sure bugs are reviewed for relevancy, fix, closure, etc.
(In reply to Dafna Ron from comment #0) > Created attachment 854987 [details] > logs and screenshots > > Description of problem: > > If I create a preallocated disk the actual and virtual size are the same. > if I extend that disk, the virtual size changes but the actual size remains > the same - so the extend is always done as thin provision instead of > extending by selected allocation by the user. > > Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): > > ovirt-engine-backend-3.4.0-0.5.beta1.el6.noarch > > How reproducible: > > 100% > > Steps to Reproduce: > 1. create a preallocated 3 GB disk > 2. extend the disk by 4 GB > 3. > > Actual results: > > although the disk is preallocated, the extend is done as thin provision > > Expected results: > > if the disk is preallocated we need to make sure that the extend will be the > same. > > Additional info: > > Please note, this might be related to bug: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1057622 what storage type were you using? (nfs/iscsi/...)
first test day - nfs second test day - iscsi i think this was opened on first test day so nfs.
Won't the RFE in bug 1097843 invalidate the scenario of this BZ?
(In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #4) > Won't the RFE in bug 1097843 invalidate the scenario of this BZ? Yes, anyway I wonder what's wrong at the moment. This case was supposed to be covered.
(In reply to Federico Simoncelli from comment #5) > (In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #4) > > Won't the RFE in bug 1097843 invalidate the scenario of this BZ? > > Yes, anyway I wonder what's wrong at the moment. This case was supposed to > be covered. Probably not worth the effort to investigate, as we're going to kill this off anyway. Postponing till after this RFE is resolved, after which this BZ will be reduced to validating that the flow did not break.
This is an automated message. This Bugzilla report has been opened on a version which is not maintained anymore. Please check if this bug is still relevant in oVirt 3.5.4. If it's not relevant anymore, please close it (you may use EOL or CURRENT RELEASE resolution) If it's an RFE please update the version to 4.0 if still relevant.
This is an automated message. This Bugzilla report has been opened on a version which is not maintained anymore. Please check if this bug is still relevant in oVirt 3.5.4 and reopen if still an issue.
Target release should be placed once a package build is known to fix a issue. Since this bug is not modified, the target version has been reset. Please use target milestone to plan a fix for a oVirt release.
In oVirt testing is done on single stream by default. Therefore I'm removing the 4.0 flag. If you think this bug must be tested in 4.0 as well, please re-add the flag. Please note we might not have testing resources to handle the 4.0 clone.
Closing old tickets, in medium/low severity. If you believe it should be re-opened, please do so and add justification.