Hi Vasu, >Release flag is set for 1.3.1, but this should be documented in Release notes for 1.3.0 as Known issue so that customers dont try this config. - Please share which config should not be tried and the reason for release note request on this BZ.
The reason is in the above comment. Users must not use pool snapshots on a pool used by radosgw as it will crash the osd.
Thanks Sam! Will this be fixed in code in future release?
Yeah, I have a patch for it, it's not in master yet. I'm working on improving certain ceph-qa-suite tests to exercise this case.
John, is there a particular document that QE should be looking at in order to review this and move this bz to VERIFIED?
All outstanding bugs were added to the release notes. https://access.redhat.com/beta/documentation/en/red-hat-ceph-storage-13-release-notes
This defect is found under known issues section in the doc link shared by John in comment 8. Marking this as verified from the doc perspective for release 1.3.0. But the original issue need to be fixed in later releases (see comment 5). We may have to create a new defect for this. Sam, Can you please let me know if this needs a separate ticket?
The fix appears in master, infernalis, and hammer, but not v0.94.2. I guess that means it needs another ticket (unless it was cherry-picked in for the most recent release)? The hammer backport was commit c7b6a6370a69149ea94f9e35d536aa90f06e7659 Author: Samuel Just <sjust> Date: Tue May 19 10:56:11 2015 -0700 ReplicatedPG::finish_ctx: take excl lock if operation is rw Fixes: #11677 Signed-off-by: Samuel Just <sjust> (cherry picked from commit 5c2b795724423ed484ab451de855ddcfc085342b) and two other test commits 1550a569dab120ce28396fe365565e8e4acd9801 4cdc5f7d6b3ec488c79c09cb44a43d4d9398b74c This bug does not appear to be applicable to firefly.
Ken, > The fix appears in master, infernalis, and hammer, but not v0.94.2. I guess that means it needs another ticket (unless it was cherry-picked in for the most recent release)? Can you please confirm whether this was picked up for 0.94.3 or not? If not, i will create a separate BZ for it...
(In reply to Harish NV Rao from comment #11) > Can you please confirm whether this was picked up for 0.94.3 or not? If not, > i will create a separate BZ for it... Yes, the backport is in v0.94.3.
We will be verifying the fix for this in 1.3.1 as part of Bug #1223941.
For 1.3.0, the Doc fix has been already verified.