SVC storwize regression after fixing 1913363

Bug #1958632 reported by Wojciech
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
Cinder
New
Medium
Unassigned

Bug Description

A lot of errors
 Stderr:
'CMMVC6578E The command has failed because the iSCSI name is already assigned or is not valid.\n': oslo_concurrency.processutils.ProcessExecutionError: Unexpected error while running command.
Stderr: 'CMMVC6578E The command has failed because the iSCSI name is already assigned or is not valid.\n': oslo_concurrency.processutils.ProcessExecutionError: Unexpected error while running command.
 stderr: CMMVC6578E The command has failed because the iSCSI name is already assigned or is not valid.
 stderr: CMMVC6578E The command has failed because the iSCSI name is already assigned or is not valid.
 stderr: CMMVC6578E The command has failed because the iSCSI name is already assigned or is not valid.
,
probably after https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1913363
even on small env
this race condition causes volumes to not be able to attach to vm, ending in error state
happy to provide more logs/tests if needed.

Wojciech (suzumushi)
summary: - SVC storewize regression after fixing 1913363
+ SVC storwize regression after fixing 1913363
Revision history for this message
Sofia Enriquez (lsofia-enriquez) wrote :

Greetings,
Would you mind sharing the steps to reproduce?
Thanks in advance

Changed in cinder:
importance: Undecided → Medium
tags: added: storewize svc
tags: added: race-condition
Revision history for this message
Wojciech (suzumushi) wrote :

Deploy openstack (ussuri in this case) with Availability zones in separate geo locations
each geo location has it's own ceph and svc storage, managed by 3 cinder instnaces

and i think this could be reason for that error, and could be related to

https://bugs.launchpad.net/cinder/+bug/1740021/

but need confirmation that there is no possibility to use more than one cinder instance to manage one svc.
in our case we have 50+ nodes per AZ, and one cinder instance basically disqualifies usage of svc as storage backend.
If it's what i think, is there any plan to implement A/A for svc driver ?

regards

w

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.