RHEL Engineering is moving the tracking of its product development work on RHEL 6 through RHEL 9 to Red Hat Jira (issues.redhat.com). If you're a Red Hat customer, please continue to file support cases via the Red Hat customer portal. If you're not, please head to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira and file new tickets here. Individual Bugzilla bugs in the statuses "NEW", "ASSIGNED", and "POST" are being migrated throughout September 2023. Bugs of Red Hat partners with an assigned Engineering Partner Manager (EPM) are migrated in late September as per pre-agreed dates. Bugs against components "kernel", "kernel-rt", and "kpatch" are only migrated if still in "NEW" or "ASSIGNED". If you cannot log in to RH Jira, please consult article #7032570. That failing, please send an e-mail to the RH Jira admins at rh-issues@redhat.com to troubleshoot your issue as a user management inquiry. The email creates a ServiceNow ticket with Red Hat. Individual Bugzilla bugs that are migrated will be moved to status "CLOSED", resolution "MIGRATED", and set with "MigratedToJIRA" in "Keywords". The link to the successor Jira issue will be found under "Links", have a little "two-footprint" icon next to it, and direct you to the "RHEL project" in Red Hat Jira (issue links are of type "https://issues.redhat.com/browse/RHEL-XXXX", where "X" is a digit). This same link will be available in a blue banner at the top of the page informing you that that bug has been migrated.
Bug 1071023 - RHEV: Cannot start VMs that have more than 23 snapshots.
Summary: RHEV: Cannot start VMs that have more than 23 snapshots.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1067576
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6
Classification: Red Hat
Component: qemu-kvm
Version: 6.6
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
urgent
urgent
Target Milestone: rc
: 6.5
Assignee: Jeff Cody
QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On: 1067576 1072339 1113583
Blocks: 1023565
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-02-27 23:04 UTC by Jeff Cody
Modified: 2019-04-28 10:44 UTC (History)
24 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of: 1067576
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-02-28 18:22:32 UTC
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)
Script to reproduce relative pathname bug with just qemu-kvm and qemu-img (2.38 KB, text/plain)
2014-02-27 23:17 UTC, Jeff Cody 		no flags Details
View All


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Knowledge Base (Article) 730773 0 None None None Never

Comment 1 Jeff Cody 2014-02-27 23:17:21 UTC 
Created attachment 868778 [details]
Script to reproduce relative pathname bug with just qemu-kvm and qemu-img

Script to reproduce relative pathname bug with just qemu-kvm and qemu-img

Attached is a script to reproduce this bug with just qemu-kvm, and qemu-img.

This can be seen via either live snapshots, or image creation with qemu-img.

This script will do the following:

1) create test directory
2) create a qcow2 base image
3) launch qemu-kvm with qmp over localhost tcp
4) attempt to create 80 live snapshots with a relative pathname, to parent directory and then back into the test directory
5) run qemu-img, create a different set of 80 snapshots off the same base image.
6) kill the process started in step #3

All you should need to edit in the script is the executable path for qemu and qemu-img.

The test directory is left after the script runs, with the created snapshots and an output log, for later examination.

Expected outcome:
-355:  All snapshot created successfully (live and via qemu-img)
-415:  First ~24 snapshots succeed, those after that fail

Any fix should restore it back to -355 parity.

If you edit the script to create 150 snapshots instead of 80, you will see -355 fail as well.
Comment 3 Qunfang Zhang 2014-02-28 03:01:03 UTC 
Hi, Jeff

Could you help to point out the difference between this bug and bug 1067576? Is the script in comment 1 is the scenario we need to test and verify for this bug? 


Thanks,
Qunfang
Comment 4 Jeff Cody 2014-02-28 11:57:18 UTC 
(In reply to Qunfang Zhang from comment #3)
> Hi, Jeff
> 
> Could you help to point out the difference between this bug and bug 1067576?
> Is the script in comment 1 is the scenario we need to test and verify for
> this bug? 
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> Qunfang

Hi Qunfang,

This bug is for RHEL6.6, while the other bug is a z-stream candidate for RHEL6.5.  But RHEL6.6 will need a patch as well.
Comment 5 Qunfang Zhang 2014-02-28 13:27:55 UTC 
(In reply to Jeff Cody from comment #4)
> (In reply to Qunfang Zhang from comment #3)
> > Hi, Jeff
> > 
> > Could you help to point out the difference between this bug and bug 1067576?
> > Is the script in comment 1 is the scenario we need to test and verify for
> > this bug? 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > Qunfang
> 
> Hi Qunfang,
> 
> This bug is for RHEL6.6, while the other bug is a z-stream candidate for
> RHEL6.5.  But RHEL6.6 will need a patch as well.

Hi, Jeff

Thanks for the reply. But I'm still confused. Usually we will have a bug for rhel6.6, and then after it's approved by PM, it will be cloned to a new bug for rhel6.5-z.  Currently the sequence is just opposite and both the bugs have "rhel6.6.0?" flags. Could you help check and confirm? Also help fix me if it's wrong. 

Thanks!
Qunfang
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.