We will be fixing this in the 4.1 GA which is out soon, due to the
complexity.
If you want, you can try out the RC.
Yaniv Dary
Technical Product Manager
Red Hat Israel Ltd.
34 Jerusalem Road
Building A, 4th floor
Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
Tel : +972 (9) 7692306
8272306
Email: ydary(a)redhat.com
IRC : ydary
On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Daniel Erez <derez(a)redhat.com> wrote:
On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Yaniv Dary <ydary(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> Did we instruct to test these flow to reduce this risk?
> What are the relevant cases?
>
The main scenario we've addressed is removing any newer snapshots after
restoring an older one
(of course only in case that we don't use any disk from the newer
snapshots).
This is done to simplify the behavior and avoid confusing scenarios that
we don't support
(i.e. prevent previewing VM configuration of a newer snapshot after
restoring an older snapshot).
>
> Yaniv Dary
> Technical Product Manager
> Red Hat Israel Ltd.
> 34 Jerusalem Road
> Building A, 4th floor
> Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
>
> Tel : +972 (9) 7692306 <+972%209-769-2306>
> 8272306
> Email: ydary(a)redhat.com
> IRC : ydary
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Tal Nisan <tnisan(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> It's indeed an edge case and the fix suggested while in theory better
>> than the condition before it still is quite risky.
>> Take into consideration that the old mechanism while flawed in this
>> particular case worked flawlessly for a few versions now so we've decided
>> that replacing the existing mechanism for zstream as well is not a good
>> idea.
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 4:55 PM, Yaniv Dary <ydary(a)redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Can we consider a backport?
>>> How complex is the fix?
>>>
>>> Yaniv Dary
>>> Technical Product Manager
>>> Red Hat Israel Ltd.
>>> 34 Jerusalem Road
>>> Building A, 4th floor
>>> Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
>>>
>>> Tel : +972 (9) 7692306 <+972%209-769-2306>
>>> 8272306
>>> Email: ydary(a)redhat.com
>>> IRC : ydary
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Pavel Gashev <Pax(a)acronis.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yaniv,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I’ve encountered it in 4.0.5.5. That’s why I started looking for
>>>> existing bugs.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thank you so much
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Yaniv Dary <ydary(a)redhat.com>
>>>> *Date: *Monday 9 January 2017 at 17:35
>>>> *To: *Pavel Gashev <Pax(a)acronis.com>
>>>> *Cc: *Vinzenz Feenstra <vfeenstr(a)redhat.com>,
"devel(a)ovirt.org" <
>>>> devel(a)ovirt.org>
>>>>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [ovirt-devel] BZ#1375139 VM lost its disk after
>>>> snapshot preview/commit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The flow seem to be a edge case.
>>>>
>>>> We can reconsider, have you encountered this issue?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yaniv Dary
>>>>
>>>> Technical Product Manager
>>>>
>>>> Red Hat Israel Ltd.
>>>>
>>>> 34 Jerusalem Road
>>>>
>>>> Building A, 4th floor
>>>>
>>>> Ra'anana, Israel 4350109
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Tel : +972 (9) 7692306 <+972%209-769-2306>
>>>>
>>>> 8272306
>>>>
>>>> Email: ydary(a)redhat.com
>>>>
>>>> IRC : ydary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Pavel Gashev <Pax(a)acronis.com>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It’s weird, isn’t it? That solution is not accepted, but the issue
>>>> still does exist in 4.0.
>>>>
>>>> There are two bugs (BZ#1379131 and BZ#1375139), but both are switched
>>>> to 4.1.
>>>>
>>>> Does it make sense to create another one?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Note that the bugs have urgent priority. Users can corrupt their VMs
>>>> via the User Portal.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> *From: *Vinzenz Feenstra <vfeenstr(a)redhat.com>
>>>> *Date: *Monday 9 January 2017 at 14:25
>>>> *To: *Pavel Gashev <Pax(a)acronis.com>
>>>> *Cc: *"devel(a)ovirt.org" <devel(a)ovirt.org>
>>>> *Subject: *Re: [ovirt-devel] BZ#1375139 VM lost its disk after
>>>> snapshot preview/commit
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jan 9, 2017, at 12:23 PM, Pavel Gashev <Pax(a)acronis.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1375139
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Could somebody confirm, that the issue is not going to be fixed in 4.0?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It has not been merged to 4.0 branch, so I don’t assume so, the
>>>> backport for 4.0 has been abandoned
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>> Devel(a)ovirt.org
>>>>
http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>