Cinder

Infortrend driver does not honor clone volume size

Bug #1554784 reported by Sean McGinnis
6
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Cinder
Fix Released
Medium
Xinli Guan
Cinder ongoing

Bug Description

It's possible to create a volume from a source volume with a different size. The create_cloned_volume call into the driver could have a larger volume['size'] than the source volume. So the driver will need to create the clone, then check if it needs to extend the volume to a new size.

Sean McGinnis (sean-mcginnis)
Changed in cinder:
milestone: none → newton-1
Sean McGinnis (sean-mcginnis)
Changed in cinder:
milestone: newton-1 → newton-2
wuyuting (wytdahu)
Changed in cinder:
assignee: nobody → wuyuting (wytdahu)
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Fix proposed to cinder (master)

Fix proposed to branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/326792

Changed in cinder:
status: New → In Progress
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack)
Changed in cinder:
assignee: wuyuting (wytdahu) → Erlon R. Cruz (sombrafam)
Sean McGinnis (sean-mcginnis)
Changed in cinder:
milestone: newton-2 → ocata-1
Revision history for this message
JohnnyChou (chengwei-chou) wrote :

Hi Sean,

Infortrend driver will create a new empty volume which use the new volume['size'].

And how we do volume_clone is to copy all the data from the source volume to the new one.

So the new volume is already the new size.

Same as
https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1560659

Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote : Change abandoned on cinder (master)

Change abandoned by Sean McGinnis (<email address hidden>) on branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/336092
Reason: This review is > 4 weeks without comment, and failed Jenkins the last time it was checked. We are abandoning this for now. Feel free to reactivate the review by pressing the restore button and leaving a 'recheck' comment to get fresh test results.

Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote :

Change abandoned by Sean McGinnis (<email address hidden>) on branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/326792
Reason: This review is > 4 weeks without comment, and failed Jenkins the last time it was checked. We are abandoning this for now. Feel free to reactivate the review by pressing the restore button and leaving a 'recheck' comment to get fresh test results.

Sean McGinnis (sean-mcginnis)
Changed in cinder:
milestone: ocata-1 → ongoing
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack)
Changed in cinder:
assignee: Erlon R. Cruz (sombrafam) → Xinli Guan (xinli-v)
JohnnyChou (chengwei-chou)
Changed in cinder:
status: In Progress → Invalid
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack)
Changed in cinder:
status: Invalid → In Progress
Revision history for this message
JohnnyChou (chengwei-chou) wrote :

Hi, this issue is not a bug.
When we do volume_clone, we'll create a new empty volume whose size is already the new volume['size'].
And surely, it can create a larger size than the original one.
Later, we copy the data from the source volume to the new volume.

So, in our driver code, it doesn't need to call the extend_volume, it can handle a larger size.

Revision history for this message
Xinli Guan (xinli-v) wrote :

I will discuss with some core team member to cancel / invalid the bug, then adding another patch to provide the unit test scansion to verify that the new created volume's size could be larger than the
original one without calling extend_volume.

Revision history for this message
Xinli Guan (xinli-v) wrote :

The new patch 450425 has been added to check the driver code in larger volume size case and it gets verified that InforTrend driver handles the case correctly.

The bug will be closed.

https://review.openstack.org/#/c/450425

Changed in cinder:
status: In Progress → Fix Released
Revision history for this message
OpenStack Infra (hudson-openstack) wrote :

Change abandoned by Jay Bryant (<email address hidden>) on branch: master
Review: https://review.openstack.org/336092
Reason: It was decided that we wouldn't go down this path so we this patch can be abandoned.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.