Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.

Bug 1058732

Summary:	[RFE] Allow live storage migration from block domain to a file domain
Product:	Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager	Reporter:	Tal Nisan <tnisan>
Component:	vdsm	Assignee:	Nir Soffer <nsoffer>
Status:	CLOSED ERRATA	QA Contact:	Kevin Alon Goldblatt <kgoldbla>
Severity:	medium	Docs Contact:
Priority:	unspecified
Version:	3.4.0	CC:	acanan, amureini, bazulay, eedri, fsimonce, gklein, iheim, jwang, lpeer, nsoffer, scohen, tnisan, yeylon
Target Milestone:	ovirt-3.6.0-rc	Keywords:	FutureFeature
Target Release:	3.6.0	Flags:	sherold: Triaged+
Hardware:	Unspecified
OS:	Unspecified
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:	ovirt-engine-3.6.0_alpha2	Doc Type:	Enhancement
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2016-03-09 19:20:37 UTC	Type:	Bug
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	Storage	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	1058757, 1185842

Description Tal Nisan 2014-01-28 12:53:58 UTC

Currently live migrating from a block domain to a file domain is impossible cause of a caching bug in VDSM

Comment 2 Ayal Baron 2014-02-10 14:26:36 UTC

*** Bug 961641 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 4 Dayle Parker 2016-02-22 01:07:39 UTC

If this bug requires doc text for errata release, please provide draft text in the doc text field in the following format:

 Cause:
 Consequence:
 Fix:
 Result:

The documentation team will review, edit, and approve the text.
If this bug does not require doc text, please set the 'requires_doc_text' flag to -.

Comment 5 Nir Soffer 2016-02-29 12:49:04 UTC

This bug does not need doc text, since the doc text is covered in bug 1058732.

Comment 6 Dayle Parker 2016-02-29 23:58:45 UTC

Hi Nir, 
Thanks for the reply. Just to double check, I'm guessing that you meant bug 1058757 instead of bug 1058732 -- is that correct?

Comment 7 Nir Soffer 2016-03-01 05:57:07 UTC

(In reply to Dayle Parker from comment #6)
> Just to double check, I'm guessing that you meant bug
> 1058757 instead of bug 1058732 -- is that correct?
Yes

Comment 9 errata-xmlrpc 2016-03-09 19:20:37 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-2016-0362.html