<div dir="ltr"><div><div>Hi Denis, <br><br>Ok I will file a bug for this. <br></div>I am not sure if I will be able to provide troubleshooting info for much long as I already have put forward the replacement of disks with 512 ones.<br><br></div>Alex<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Jun 8, 2017 at 11:48 AM, Denis Chaplygin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dchaplyg@redhat.com" target="_blank">dchaplyg@redhat.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hello Alex,<span class=""><br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Jun 7, 2017 at 11:39 AM, Abi Askushi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rightkicktech@gmail.com" target="_blank">rightkicktech@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div><div><div>Hi Sahina, <br><br></div>Did you have the chance to check the logs and have any idea how this may be addressed?<br></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br><br></div></span><div class="gmail_extra">It seems to be a VDSM issue, as VDSM uses direct IO (and id actualy calls dd) and assumes that block size is 512. I see in the code, that block size is defined as a constant, so it probably may be adjusted, but i think it would be better if we ask some one who knows that part better.<br><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Anyway, could you please file a bug on that issue? Thanks in advance.<br></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>