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the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.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.
I don't think there is a bug.
When you want to 'exclusively' activate LV - it will get activated this way on any cluster node.
So it's just like when you want to activate already active LV.
So if in the past repeated exclusive activation of already active LV reported error - it was a bug which has been fixed.
The 'return code' reflects the actual state - and if the actual state is 'exclusively active LV' - it's then correctly returning 0.
Asking to activate an already activate local volume is different. There, in the end, you get exactly what you asked for even if the cmd didn't actually need to do anything since it was already in the state you requested.
Here, you are requesting the exclusive activation of that volume, on that specific machine in the cluster. This command not only produces locking errors, but the result is that volume *not* being exclusively activated on that specific machine (since it's already exclusively active on a different cluster machine). The command was unable to do what you requested.
I may have to stand corrected. From the lvchange man page: "If clustered locking is enabled, -aey will activate exclusively on *one* node..."
I would argue that running -aye on nodeA implies that you are requesting it be exclusively active on nodeA, but that is not what is technically guaranteed by the man page.
I still argue that a non zero return is more helpful to the user, but feel free to close this bug.
Yep - we technically do not have 'local exclusive' activation command available.
Normally 'exclusive' activation prefers 'local' node, but it's not a rule and could be further controlled by filters and tags.
I admit it's quite complicated and likely not very used in its full capability.
New 'sanlock' will be far less complex here.
What could be a bug/issue here is the 'Error' locking message which may look confusing, it should rather state something about LV being already exclusively active on another node.
Test has to also fail, if the LV is active non-exclusively on any of cluster nodes.
Probably for BZ completeness it's worth to mention:
http://people.redhat.com/agk/talks/CLVM-UKUUG2007/