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 2123151 - Consider pruning... (check archiving is needed in lvm.conf)
Summary: Consider pruning... (check archiving is needed in lvm.conf)
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Red Hat Enterprise Linux 9
Classification: Red Hat
Component: lvm2
Version: 9.1
Hardware: x86_64
OS: Linux
unspecified
low
Target Milestone: rc
: ---
Assignee: Zdenek Kabelac
QA Contact: cluster-qe
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2022-08-31 19:28 UTC by Corey Marthaler
Modified: 2023-11-07 11:27 UTC (History)
8 users (show)

Fixed In Version: lvm2-2.03.21-1.el9
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2023-11-07 08:53:27 UTC
Type: Bug
Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
pm-rhel: mirror+

Attachments (Terms of Use)


Links
System ID Private Priority Status Summary Last Updated
Red Hat Issue Tracker CLUSTERQE-6684 0 None None None 2023-05-16 00:15:23 UTC
Red Hat Issue Tracker RHELPLAN-132929 0 None None None 2022-08-31 19:36:07 UTC
Red Hat Product Errata RHBA-2023:6633 0 None None None 2023-11-07 08:53:53 UTC

Description Corey Marthaler 2022-08-31 19:28:19 UTC 
Description of problem:

I'm not sure this is actually a bug, but is this warning demanding 
the user check the lvm.conf file or suggesting it as an option? Like, should it be "(check archiving *if* needed in lvm.conf)"


[root@hayes-01 ~]# ls -l /etc/lvm/archive/ | wc -l
2222

[root@hayes-01 ~]# lvremove -f vdo_sanity
  Consider pruning vdo_sanity VG archive with more then 892 MiB in 2171 files (check archiving is needed in lvm.conf).
  Logical volume "vdo_lv" successfully removed.




Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
lvm2-2.03.14-6.el8    BUILT: Fri Jul 29 05:40:53 CDT 2022
lvm2-libs-2.03.14-6.el8    BUILT: Fri Jul 29 05:40:53 CDT 2022
Comment 1 Zdenek Kabelac 2022-09-01 10:17:31 UTC 
Please provide better wording if there is one.

The first part if this hint message:

Consider pruning vdo_sanity VG archive with more then 892 MiB in 2171 files

describes a problem with hint how to solve it - that either too many files are considered to be in the '/etc/lvm/archive' directory 
or too large size of archives - or both.



The second part:
(check archiving is needed in lvm.conf).

describes possible 'long-term' solution for such user - if he is generating way too many 'archived' metadata he might get better performance if such stream of archiving is actually disabled.
Since typically this massive load of archived volume groups metadata set is on testing machines where many randomly generated VG names are created.


Lvm2 tracks history size for individual VGs - but if each VG is using different random name - then over the time the amount of collected files may slowdown even lvm command itself (which tries to maintain this history)
Comment 2 Corey Marthaler 2022-09-26 22:56:20 UTC 
Right, I totally understand both the first and second part. The second part, when I read it, I thought the "is" was a typo for "if". Like, if this continues to be an issue the user is seeing, then "check archiving in lvm.conf". However, having "check archiving IS needed in lvm.conf" reads like there's a problem that needs to be dealt with, which isn't necessarily the case if you just clean up the dir. I think "(check archiving in lvm.conf if this continues to be an issue)." would read better. However this isn't a big deal either way.
Comment 3 Zdenek Kabelac 2023-02-01 12:37:36 UTC 
Upstreamed this message update:

https://listman.redhat.com/archives/lvm-devel/2023-February/024555.html
Comment 6 Corey Marthaler 2023-06-28 18:07:08 UTC 
Marking Verified:Tested in the latest rpms.

kernel-5.14.0-322.el9    BUILT: Fri Jun  2 10:00:53 AM CEST 2023
lvm2-2.03.21-2.el9    BUILT: Thu May 25 12:03:04 AM CEST 2023
lvm2-libs-2.03.21-2.el9    BUILT: Thu May 25 12:03:04 AM CEST 2023


[root@grant-01 ~]# ls -l /etc/lvm/archive/ | wc -l
18328
[root@grant-01 ~]# lvremove -f snapper
  Consider pruning snapper VG archive with more then 223 MiB in 14807 files (see archiving settings in lvm.conf).
  Consider pruning snapper VG archive with more then 223 MiB in 14808 files (see archiving settings in lvm.conf).
  Logical volume "boom_snap" successfully removed.
  Logical volume "origin" successfully removed.
Comment 11 errata-xmlrpc 2023-11-07 08:53:27 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 (lvm2 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-2023:6633
Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.