Thanks Shani, this did the trick. I managed to tweak the database and then correctly remove the snapshot. In the meanwhile, in bugzilla https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1948599, this has been confirmed as a bug. Regards, Giulio Casella On 22/04/2021 14:31, Shani Leviim wrote:
Since 6180c2e8-141a-4126-bcb1-5af5caa98175 doesn't exist on the VDSM, it should be removed from the DB, and since it's the parent id for image e77e2773-eecb-46a6-87c7-14df14f7d95b, it also should be changed. Something like this: UPDATE images set parentid = '19fa612d-2f93-46a5-93e7-c74afc2937fa' where image_guid = 'e77e2773-eecb-46a6-87c7-14df14f7d95b';
Then you can remove the 6180c2e8 image.
It will be safe if you'll have a backup before making any DB changes.
*Regards, * *Shani Leviim *
On Thu, Apr 22, 2021 at 3:06 PM Giulio Casella <giulio@di.unimi.it <mailto:giulio@di.unimi.it>> wrote:
On 22/04/2021 13:20, Shani Leviim wrote: > Hi, > You can use the DeleteImage tool [1], but it's first recommended to > backup your engine. > > To be on the safe side, here are some checks it's better to execute > before deleting: > - In order to locate the illegal image, you can run this command on the > host: > vdsm-tool dump-volume-chains <sd_id>
Ok, that is the relevant part of the output:
image: 2fd9b340-14ce-42cd-a880-8f75eb3b72e7
- 19fa612d-2f93-46a5-93e7-c74afc2937fa status: OK, voltype: INTERNAL, format: COW, legality: LEGAL, type: SPARSE, capacity: 53687091200, truesize: 45902462976
- e77e2773-eecb-46a6-87c7-14df14f7d95b status: OK, voltype: LEAF, format: COW, legality: LEGAL, type: SPARSE, capacity: 53687091200, truesize: 27917287424
So I have on storage two images, first one is a snapshot, second one is Active VM.
Being the VM up and running I think I could say that on storage the situation is consistent.
> > - It's also recommended to verify that the engine and vdsm are synced > about that image, once you've found it, by running this command on the > engine: > SELECT * > FROM images_storage_domain_view images_storage_domain_view > WHERE image_group_id = <image_group_id>; >
That's the point: engine (database) sees 3 images, whilst vdsm sees only 2.
And this is output of:
select image_guid,parentid,imagestatus,vm_snapshot_id,volume_type,volume_format,active from images where image_group_id='image-group-id';
image_guid | parentid | imagestatus | vm_snapshot_id | volume_type | volume_format | active --------------------------------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+--------------------------------------+-------------+---------------+-------- 6180c2e8-141a-4126-bcb1-5af5caa98175 | 19fa612d-2f93-46a5-93e7-c74afc2937fa | 1 | 281a4331-89fa-4544-b6ab-22c0e5ac6459 | 2 | 4 | f 19fa612d-2f93-46a5-93e7-c74afc2937fa | 00000000-0000-0000-0000-000000000000 | 4 | 6488f4c8-efc4-43df-aafc-497fb7d51fbb | 2 | 4 | f e77e2773-eecb-46a6-87c7-14df14f7d95b | 6180c2e8-141a-4126-bcb1-5af5caa98175 | 1 | 59f69d6f-f300-45e4-8487-1fe4368a5933 | 2 | 4 | t
So there is in the database an image (the one with image-guid "6180c2e8-141a-4126-bcb1-5af5caa98175") not existing on storage.
> [1] > DeleteImage tool: > SELECT DeleteImage('image-id'); > > DELETE > FROM images > WHERE image_guid = v_image_guid; >
I think it could not be enough, I think I should adjust parentship relations in "images" table.
Just looking at that table it seems not so difficult, but: is it sufficient? Is it safe?
Regards, Giulio