Bug 1214143 - [RFE] capture "actual disk" usage info of rhev thin provision disks
Summary: [RFE] capture "actual disk" usage info of rhev thin provision disks
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED DUPLICATE of bug 1309275
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat CloudForms Management Engine
Classification: Red Hat
Component: Providers
Version: 5.3.0
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
medium
urgent
Target Milestone: GA
: 5.6.0
Assignee: Moti Asayag
QA Contact: Dave Johnson
URL:
Whiteboard: rhev
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-04-22 05:58 UTC by Prasad Mukhedkar
Modified: 2019-11-14 06:42 UTC (History)
6 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Enhancement
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-05-13 13:10:19 UTC
Category: ---
Cloudforms Team: ---
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Prasad Mukhedkar 2015-04-22 05:58:04 UTC 
Description of problem:

In rhev, "Thin Provisioned" disks consist two sizes
actual size and virtual size. cloudforms only collect
virtual size. 

knowing "actual size" of virtual disks is very important
to plan capacity planning. please have enhancement in the
product to collect "actual size" of vdisks. 


Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
5.3.0.15
Comment 3 Joe Vlcek 2015-07-27 18:45:14 UTC 
I have compared how VMWare and RHEVm report thin provisioned disk usage for VMs and
they seem to be the same.

Is there a bug in RHEVm or is this an RFE.

If this is a bug please provide a description of the steps necessary to reproduce it.

Thank you,
JoeV
Comment 4 Joe Vlcek 2015-08-03 14:28:34 UTC 
The current functionality seems to work as designed, so I am marking this as an RFE. If it is felt his is actually a bug please remove the [RFE] from the the topic and provide a detailed description of the steps to reproduce it.

Thank you,
JoeV
Comment 5 Prasad Mukhedkar 2015-09-28 05:49:00 UTC 
JoeV thank you for looking into this. I agree to consider this as a RFE.
Comment 9 Moti Asayag 2016-05-09 13:57:10 UTC 
Oved, Greg, 

Isn't this bug a duplicate of bug 1309275 which was already fixed ?
Comment 10 Oved Ourfali 2016-05-10 05:45:20 UTC 
Prasad, those indeed seem duplicates. I see you've opened both of them.
Are they duplicates, or are we missing something?
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.