Bug 2078452
| Summary: | System crash attempting to remove a large writecache from a VG | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | Red Hat Enterprise Linux 8 | Reporter: | Carlos Maiolino <cmaiolin> |
| Component: | lvm2 | Assignee: | David Teigland <teigland> |
| lvm2 sub component: | Cache Logical Volumes | QA Contact: | cluster-qe <cluster-qe> |
| Status: | CLOSED MIGRATED | Docs Contact: | |
| Severity: | medium | ||
| Priority: | medium | CC: | agk, heinzm, jbrassow, mpatocka, msnitzer, prajnoha, zkabelac |
| Version: | 8.6 | Keywords: | MigratedToJIRA, Triaged |
| Target Milestone: | rc | Flags: | pm-rhel:
mirror+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
| OS: | Unspecified | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2023-09-23 15:55:07 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
Carlos Maiolino
2022-04-25 11:26:30 UTC
I think this is a duplicate of bug 2059644 where the fix was to print a warning when writecache requires >50% of system memory, and requires a confirmation if it requires >90% of memory. It doesn't currently prevent creating a large writecache, but we could extend the solution to actually fail to create at some memory percentage. (In reply to David Teigland from comment #1) > I think this is a duplicate of bug 2059644 where the fix was to print a > warning when writecache requires >50% of system memory, and requires a > confirmation if it requires >90% of memory. It doesn't currently prevent > creating a large writecache, but we could extend the solution to actually > fail to create at some memory percentage. Hi David. Yeah, that seems a reasonable solution to avoid people creating caches that will likely crash their systems, but I don't think this will do anything if somebody reduces their system's memory after creating the cache. But anyway, this is just an idea based on the fact my biggest problem when I hit this, was to actually recover the system, giving the fact I couldn't boot it because of the big cache, and was unable to remove it too after I realized my mistake. Cheers > likely crash their systems, but I don't think this will do anything if > somebody reduces their system's memory after creating the cache. Yes, we could apply similar checking in the activation path and fail to activate an LV if we think the writecache would use too much memory. Or dm-writecache could do some similar checking in the kernel. Mikulas, do you think either of those options makes sense? > But anyway, this is just an idea based on the fact my biggest problem when I > hit this, was to actually recover the system, giving the fact I couldn't boot it > because of the big cache, and was unable to remove it too after I realized my > mistake. If the system is autoactivating the problematic LV then it's difficult to intervene and fix the problem, so I do think we should have a better way to handle this. Once you've started the system successfully and the problematic writecache is inactive, then lvconvert --splitcache --force LV will forcibly detach the writecache without attempting to activate and write back the data, with potential data loss. Issue migration from Bugzilla to Jira is in process at this time. This will be the last message in Jira copied from the Bugzilla bug. This BZ has been automatically migrated to the issues.redhat.com Red Hat Issue Tracker. All future work related to this report will be managed there. Due to differences in account names between systems, some fields were not replicated. Be sure to add yourself to Jira issue's "Watchers" field to continue receiving updates and add others to the "Need Info From" field to continue requesting information. To find the migrated issue, look in the "Links" section for a direct link to the new issue location. The issue key will have an icon of 2 footprints next to it, and begin with "RHEL-" followed by an integer. You can also find this issue by visiting https://issues.redhat.com/issues/?jql= and searching the "Bugzilla Bug" field for this BZ's number, e.g. a search like: "Bugzilla Bug" = 1234567 In the event you have trouble locating or viewing this issue, you can file an issue by sending mail to rh-issues. You can also visit https://access.redhat.com/articles/7032570 for general account information. |