Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 980162
configuring direct-lun using lun which is already part of SD should be notified
Last modified: 2016-02-10 14:11:04 EST
Description of problem:
engine should not allow user to use used luns within the same engine for creation of new disk or storage domain
Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable):
Steps to Reproduce:
1. Create new VM
2. attached direct-lun disk (Disk should be already in use by another storage domain) to that VM -
3. start the VM
able to attached direct-lun, cause data corruption
user shouldn't be able to attached disk that already part of another storage domain
not sure we should/can block this for now - ManageIQ (CloudForms) and other vendors are using this technique to analyze the disks on storage today.
Is this via the webadmin? REST?
Can we get a log? screenshot?
Created attachment 832683 [details]
Check on webadmin,
We get a red warning on the disk creation window when we pick a LUN which is already part of a SD.
AFAIK, Itamar is correct (see comment 1) - ManageIQ needs this feature, so we can only warn about it, not block the operation.
Sean, can you confirm?
(In reply to Allon Mureinik from comment #5)
> AFAIK, Itamar is correct (see comment 1) - ManageIQ needs this feature, so
> we can only warn about it, not block the operation.
> Sean, can you confirm?
Confirmed, this operation should not be blocked. Cloudforms & other clusters solutions require it today,
However, we can notify the user that the direct LUN is already used in another VM and ask user to confirm the operation.
Changing the bug title accordingly
The warning is already there (see snapshot), and the operation should not be blocked (see comment 6).
Based on these inputs, I'm closing the bug.
*** Bug 879293 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
*** Bug 1096904 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Before trying to do the same thing (ie. direct attach to a LUN), to try to follow the doc here (http://manageiq.org/documentation/top-tasks/#run-smartstate-analysis-on-rhev-m-virtual-machines), is it harmless to do so?
Is it recommended to attach it with read only checkbox checked?
(In reply to Nicolas Ecarnot from comment #10)
> Before trying to do the same thing (ie. direct attach to a LUN), to try to
> follow the doc here
> rhev-m-virtual-machines), is it harmless to do so?
> Is it recommended to attach it with read only checkbox checked?
SmartState analysis is perfectly safe.
I'm not an expert on the details, but using read-only sounds like a good idea.