Note: This bug is displayed in read-only format because the product is no longer active in Red Hat Bugzilla.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.

Bug 2073203

Summary: lvm fails to create a vdo volume using the 512 MB index memory setting
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 Reporter: sclafani
Component: vdoAssignee: sclafani
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Filip Suba <fsuba>
Severity: unspecified Docs Contact:
Priority: unspecified    
Version: 8.7CC: awalsh, cwei, fsuba
Target Milestone: rcKeywords: Triaged
Target Release: ---Flags: pm-rhel: mirror+
Hardware: Unspecified   
OS: Unspecified   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: vdo-6.2.7.7-30.el8 Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2022-11-08 10:54:31 UTC Type: Bug
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:

Description sclafani 2022-04-07 21:30:36 UTC
Description of problem:

If allocation/vdo_index_memory_size_mb=512 is passed to lvcreate, lvm passes "0.50", not "0.5" as the uds-memory-size value. vdoformat will not accept that and fails with a generic parse error.

This appears to be the relevant LVM code:
https://github.com/lvmteam/lvm2/blob/819a35cc9133889b5efc4833d8191e3e71396552/lib/metadata/vdo_manip.c#L281

It's not unreasonable to expect 0.50 to work and even though the vdomanager vdo man page documented that 0.5 works and 0.50 doesn't, it's probably best to change vdoformat to accept both.


How reproducible:
Pass --config 'allocation/vdo_index_memory_size_mb=512' to lvcreate

Actual results:
  vdoformat: parseIndexConfig failed: Unrecoverable error: Unknown error -131094 
  Command /home/test/vdoformat failed. 
  Cannot format VDO pool volume vdo1/vdo0pool. 

Expected results:
lvcreate succeeds

Comment 4 Filip Suba 2022-08-04 12:50:29 UTC
Verified with vdo-6.2.7.17-14.el8.

# lvcreate --type vdo -L 10G -V 100G --config 'allocation/vdo_index_memory_size_mb=512' vg
    The VDO volume can address 4 GB in 2 data slabs, each 2 GB.
    It can grow to address at most 16 TB of physical storage in 8192 slabs.
    If a larger maximum size might be needed, use bigger slabs.
  Logical volume "lvol0" created.

Comment 6 errata-xmlrpc 2022-11-08 10:54:31 UTC
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 (kmod-kvdo bug fix and enhancement update), 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-2022:7778