Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.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

Summary: RHEV: Cannot start VMs that have more than 23 snapshots.
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 6 Reporter: Jeff Cody <jcody>
Component: qemu-kvmAssignee: Jeff Cody <jcody>
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE QA Contact: Virtualization Bugs <virt-bugs>
Severity: urgent Docs Contact:
Priority: urgent    
Version: 6.6CC: abaron, acathrow, areis, bazulay, bsarathy, chayang, famz, fsimonce, gwatson, iheim, jcody, juzhang, knoel, kwolf, lpeer, michen, mkalinin, mkenneth, pbonzini, qzhang, sgordon, shu, virt-maint, yeylon
Target Milestone: rc   
Target Release: 6.5   
Hardware: x86_64   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: 1067576 Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-02-28 18:22:32 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: 1067576, 1072339, 1113583    
Bug Blocks: 1023565    
Attachments:
Description Flags
Script to reproduce relative pathname bug with just qemu-kvm and qemu-img none

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