[ovirt-devel] BZ#1375139 VM lost its disk after snapshot preview/commit

[Yaniv Dary]

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 at redhat.com
IRC : ydary


On Sun, Jan 22, 2017 at 2:15 PM, Daniel Erez <derez at redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 10:59 AM, Yaniv Dary <ydary at 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 at redhat.com
>> IRC : ydary
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2017 at 1:34 AM, Tal Nisan <tnisan at 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 at 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 at redhat.com
>>>> IRC : ydary
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:43 PM, Pavel Gashev <Pax at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Monday 9 January 2017 at 17:35
>>>>> *To: *Pavel Gashev <Pax at acronis.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *Vinzenz Feenstra <vfeenstr at redhat.com>, "devel at ovirt.org" <
>>>>> devel at 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 at redhat.com
>>>>>
>>>>> IRC : ydary
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Jan 9, 2017 at 4:25 PM, Pavel Gashev <Pax at 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 at redhat.com>
>>>>> *Date: *Monday 9 January 2017 at 14:25
>>>>> *To: *Pavel Gashev <Pax at acronis.com>
>>>>> *Cc: *"devel at ovirt.org" <devel at 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 at 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 at ovirt.org
>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Devel mailing list
>>>>> Devel at ovirt.org
>>>>> http://lists.ovirt.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ovirt.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20170122/a4dadbb7/attachment-0001.html>