[ovirt-users] [STORAGE] Adding posix compliant FS

[Julian De Marchi]

On 16/12/14 17:20, Aharon Canan wrote:
> Did you "chown 36:36" the folder to get the right permissions for adding to ovirt?

That's the thing. Ovirt actually creates that dir when I go and try to 
add the storage. It mounts the LVM device to that dir then fails. In the 
logs I posted at http://pastebin.com/fzN9ktAX you can see it is failing 
with a permission denied error. The command that is above the error is 
touch. I think it is trying to touch a file to ensure all is well and 
when that fails it gives the error.

If I knew where in the code to prefix the touch command with sudo and 
add a line to the sudoers entry I can test this idea.

[...]

> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: "Julian De Marchi" <julian at jdcomputers.com.au>
> To: users at ovirt.org
> Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 4:40:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [ovirt-users] [STORAGE] Adding posix compliant FS
>
> On 12/16/14 08:57, Julian De Marchi wrote:
>> Heya--
>>
>> I'm using ovirt 3.5 and trying to add a posix compliant FS to a node in
>> my cluster.
>>
>> The storage I'm trying to add is contained within LVM. Below is a link
>> to my log files on the node where I'm trying to attach the storage.
>>
>> http://pastebin.com/fzN9ktAX
>>
>> I've read the ovirt manual for adding posix compliant storage and
>> believe I'm doing everything correct.
>>
>> Any help to get this storage added would be great thanks and if I forgot
>> to include any info please ask.
>
> More info to add. I was doing an "ls" on the dir it does the mount in
> and saw the dir was owned by root:root with different perms to the ones
> mounted via NFS.
>
> [root at blade01 libvirt]# ls /rhev/data-center/mnt/ -lh
> total 20K
> drwxrwxrwx 4 root root 4.0K Dec 11 09:00 10.106.200.100:_VM__IMAGES
> drwxrwxrwx 3 root root 4.0K Oct 17 09:42 10.106.200.22:_opt_vmexport
> drwxrwxrwx 4 root root 4.0K Oct 17 09:39
> 10.106.200.22:_var_lib_libvirt_images
> drwxr-xr-x 3 root root 4.0K Dec 15 16:52 _dev_mapper_VolGroup-lv__images
>
> This could explain why the touch command fails.
>
> Still at a loss over the issue though.