Created attachment 1500371 [details] all log Description of problem: Imgbase check FAILED in redhat-virtualization-host-4.3-20181018.0.el7_6 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): redhat-virtualization-host-4.3-20181018.0.el7_6 imgbased-1.1.0-0.1.el7ev.noarch How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install redhat-virtualization-host-4.2-20180409.1 via PXE. 2. Reboot and login NGN #imgbase check 3. Actual results: 1. After step 2, The status is FAILED: node status: DEGRADED Please check the status manually using `nodectl check` # imgbase check Status: FAILED Bootloader ... FAILED - It looks like there are no valid bootloader entries. Please ensure this is fixed before rebooting. Layer boot entries ... FAILED - No bootloader entries which point to imgbased layers Valid boot entries ... FAILED - No valid boot entries for imgbased layers or non-imgbased layers Mount points ... FAILED - This can happen if the installation was performed incorrectly Separate /var ... OK Discard is used ... FAILED - 'discard' mount option was not added or got removed Basic storage ... OK Initialized VG ... OK Initialized Thin Pool ... OK Initialized LVs ... OK Thin storage ... FAILED - It looks like the LVM layout is not correct. The reason could be an incorrect installation. Checking available space in thinpool ... OK Checking thinpool auto-extend ... FAILED - In order to enable thinpool auto-extend,activation/thin_pool_autoextend_threshold needs to be set below 100 in lvm.conf ====== # imgbase w 2018-11-02 02:33:01,406 [ERROR] (MainThread) The root volume does not look like an image Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/runpy.py", line 162, in _run_module_as_main "__main__", fname, loader, pkg_name) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/runpy.py", line 72, in _run_code exec code in run_globals File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/__main__.py", line 53, in <module> CliApplication() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/__init__.py", line 82, in CliApplication app.hooks.emit("post-arg-parse", args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/hooks.py", line 120, in emit cb(self.context, *args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/plugins/core.py", line 166, in post_argparse msg = "You are on %s" % app.imgbase.current_layer() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/imgbase.py", line 381, in current_layer return self.image_from_path(lv) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/imgbase.py", line 146, in image_from_path return Image.from_lv_name(name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/naming.py", line 340, in from_lv_name return cls.from_nvr(lv_name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/naming.py", line 335, in from_nvr return Base(nvr) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/naming.py", line 402, in __init__ self.nvr = NVR.parse(nvr) # For convenience: Parse if necessary File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/naming.py", line 280, in parse raise RuntimeError("Failed to parse NVR: %s" % nvr) RuntimeError: Failed to parse NVR: root Expected results: 1. After step 2, there should be no FAILED nor error info Additional info:
I tried to install redhat-virtualization-host-4.3-20181018.0.el7_6, the installation failed with the following error: 2018-11-04 12:22:13,308 [INFO] (MainThread) Trying to create a manageable base from '/' 2018-11-04 12:22:14,597 [INFO] (MainThread) Initial base will be <Base rhvh-4.3.0.0-0.20181018.0 [] /> 2018-11-04 12:22:14,597 [INFO] (MainThread) Initial layer will be <Layer rhvh-4.3.0.0-0.20181018.0+1 /> 2018-11-04 12:22:14,598 [INFO] (MainThread) Creating an initial base <Base rhvh-4.3.0.0-0.20181018.0 [] /> for <LV 'rhvh_ati_fc_01/root' /> Traceback (most recent call last): File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/runpy.py", line 162, in _run_module_as_main "__main__", fname, loader, pkg_name) File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/runpy.py", line 72, in _run_code exec code in run_globals File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/__main__.py", line 53, in <module> CliApplication() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/__init__.py", line 82, in CliApplication app.hooks.emit("post-arg-parse", args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/hooks.py", line 120, in emit cb(self.context, *args) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/plugins/core.py", line 173, in post_argparse layout.initialize(args.source, args.init_nvr) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/plugins/core.py", line 220, in initialize self.app.imgbase.init_layout_from(source, init_nvr) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/imgbase.py", line 284, in init_layout_from initial_base.lv_name) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/imgbase.py", line 212, in _add_lvm_snapshot utils.Filesystem.from_device(new_lv.path).randomize_uuid() File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/utils.py", line 353, in randomize_uuid call(cmd, stderr=subprocess.STDOUT) File "/usr/lib/python2.7/site-packages/imgbased/utils.py", line 158, in call return subprocess.check_output(*args, **kwargs).strip() File "/usr/lib64/python2.7/subprocess.py", line 575, in check_output raise CalledProcessError(retcode, cmd, output=output) subprocess.CalledProcessError: Command '['e2fsck', '-y', '-f', u'/dev/rhvh_ati_fc_01/rhvh-4.3.0.0-0.20181018.0']' returned non-zero exit status 1
Add "testblocker" keyword due to this bug blocker auto testing.
Looks like the installation failed on e2fsck.
Test version: redhat-virtualization-host-4.3-20181122.0.el7_6 imgbased-1.1.1-0.1.el7ev.noarch # imgbase check Status: OK Bootloader ... OK Layer boot entries ... OK Valid boot entries ... OK Mount points ... OK Separate /var ... OK Discard is used ... OK Basic storage ... OK Initialized VG ... OK Initialized Thin Pool ... OK Initialized LVs ... OK Thin storage ... OK Checking available space in thinpool ... OK Checking thinpool auto-extend ... OK No error pop-up, so the bug is fixed, change bug status to VERIFIED.
Hi Yuval I'm editing the doc text for this bug. Can you please clarify what you meant by Treat rc=1 as success since the new fs was corrected What is the new fs? Do you mean treat return code 1 as success since e2fsck is now handled correctly? IS fs short for file share?
(In reply to Emma Heftman from comment #7) > Hi Yuval > I'm editing the doc text for this bug. Can you please clarify what you meant > by > > > Treat rc=1 as success since the new fs was corrected > > What is the new fs? > > Do you mean treat return code 1 as success since e2fsck is now handled > correctly? > IS fs short for file share? No, fs is short for filesystem. A return code of 1 in e2fsck means the filesystem had errors but it was corrected and is ok now.
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://access.redhat.com/errata/RHBA-2019:1053