Description of problem: With RHS2.0+ and rhs2.1 nodes added to as 3.1 Cluster, there is no way to determine the version of RHS. The only indication of version is by Server.General.VDSM-Version, which is not enough information for the end user. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): bb4 How reproducible: Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create 3.1 cluster 2. Add RHS2.0+ server(s) 3. Add RHS2.1 server(s) 4. Attempt to determine the version of each of the servers. Actual results: Expected results: Additional info:
Is it enough provide gluster version information in Host General tab?
(In reply to Sahina Bose from comment #2) > Is it enough provide gluster version information in Host General tab? Along with glusterfs version, we also need to provide the RHS version provided by /etc/issue in the Servers General tab # cat /etc/issue Red Hat Storage release 2.1 for On-Premise Kernel \r on an \m
Now RHS version is provided by /etc/redhat-storage-release file. ---- [root@vm13 ~]# rpm -qa |grep redhat-storage-server redhat-storage-server-2.1.0.3-1.el6rhs.noarch [root@vm13 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-storage-release Red Hat Storage Server 2.1 ----
Downstream path sent to vdsm and engine
I was expecting the output of "/etc/redhat-storage-release" file to be displayed as the RHS version in Console but doesn't seems to be the case here. ------- [root@vm10 ~]# cat /etc/redhat-storage-release Red Hat Storage Server 2.1 Update 1 [root@vm10 ~]# rpm -qa |grep redhat-storage-server redhat-storage-server-2.1.1.0-5.el6rhs.noarch ------- Looks like the rpm version of "redhat-storage-server" package is currently displayed as the RHS version with this fix. Can you explain the reason behind this? As a customer, I expect something more user readable like "Red Hat Storage Server 2.1 Update 1" rather than "2.1.1.0 - 5.el6rhs" in the UI. In fact, IMO, the whole purpose of introducing a separate file "/etc/redhat-storage-release" in RHS 2.0 was NOT only to easily provide the RHS version but also to distinguish between the different RHS deployments, i.e; on-premise or public-cloud. However, I'm not sure, if that has changed in 2.1 or not. But it's worth checking. Because, in future, when RHS-C is used to manage the AMI instance of RHS, we should have a way to distinguish these deployments easily from a normal on-premise deployment.
"Red Hat Storage Server 2.1 Update 1" is just a name of the version. And the file /etc/redhat-storage-release provides only description about the release or just a "name of a released version". One can change this file and get different output. So we cannot get the correct information about the extract package installed in the node. That is the reason we are fetching the version details from RPM db similar to other versions. The current RHS version clearly provides version number and release details. So my question here is do we really need to display RHS version name (may looks odd compare to other versions) rather than RHS version?
(In reply to Timothy Asir from comment #7) > "Red Hat Storage Server 2.1 Update 1" is just a name of the version. And the > file /etc/redhat-storage-release provides only description about the release > or just a "name of a released version". One can change this file and get > different output. So we cannot get the correct information about the extract > package installed in the node. That is the reason we are fetching the > version details from RPM db similar to other versions. The current RHS > version clearly provides version number and release details. So my question > here is do we really need to display RHS version name (may looks odd compare > to other versions) rather than RHS version? Yes, we definitely need a way to identify the different RHS deployments, especially when RHS-C is used to manage our Red Hat Storage Server for Hybrid Cloud [1]. This will definitely help the Storage Admins and Support guys in identifying the servers easily and in troubleshooting issues. [1] http://www.redhat.com/products/storage-server/hybrid-cloud/ However, as we discussed, we will keep the current method for the time being and I'll open a separate RFE for the changes that are required in future. So you may move this bug for verification.
Based on the above comment, moving it to on qa
Verified as fixed in cb8. RHS version is now available under Hosts --> General sub-tab.
Please review the edited DocText and signoff.
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. http://rhn.redhat.com/errata/RHEA-2014-0208.html
The needinfo request[s] on this closed bug have been removed as they have been unresolved for 1000 days