Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1079583
When RHEV reports a problem with a storage domain, it should report **which** storage domain
Last modified: 2016-02-10 14:50:30 EST
Description of problem: This should belong to Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization Manager, but Bugzilla doesn't seem to show that as a choice anymore. That's why I put this in with RHEL6 and rhev-hypervisor6. See the discussion at: https://access.redhat.com/site/comment/726713 Also see support case number 01057416. Support case number 01055019 may also be relevant. I have a RHEV cluster with 6 different storage domains. Or maybe 7 as of today. Trying to add a new host, RHEV-M reported this less than helpful message: Host thing3.example.local cannot access one of the Storage Domains attached to the Data Center ExampleDataCenter. Setting Host state to Non-Operational. Wonderful - which storage domain? RHEV-M and the host "know" what they're trying to connect. Why not share that information with the admin setting it up so they can troubleshoot problems? Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): 3.3 and earlier. How reproducible: at will Steps to Reproduce: 1. Set up a RHEV environment with at least two storage domains. 2. From the storage point of view, do not grant permission for any new host to access one of the storage LUNs. 3. Add a new host. Try to activate the new host with the RHEV-M GUI. 4. Observe the ambiguous error message in the RHEV-M event log. It doesn't tell you which storage domain(s) have a problem, only that at least one has a problem. As an admin, you don't know if one, some, or all storage domains have a problem. Actual results: See steps to reproduce above. Expected results: It should tell me which storage domain(s) have a problem and not make me guess. Additional info:
The correct message is displayed in the events log
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/RHSA-2015-0158.html