|Summary:||disk druid misreports that I'm allocating more megs than I have because of calculation error of logical volumes|
|Product:||[Retired] Red Hat Linux||Reporter:||Anne Fairchild <amfairc>|
|Component:||anaconda||Assignee:||Jeremy Katz <katzj>|
|Status:||CLOSED RAWHIDE||QA Contact:||Mike McLean <mikem>|
|Fixed In Version:||Doc Type:||Bug Fix|
|Doc Text:||Story Points:||---|
|Last Closed:||2003-05-25 14:54:55 UTC||Type:||---|
|oVirt Team:||---||RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:|
|Cloudforms Team:||---||Target Upstream Version:|
Description Anne Fairchild 2003-01-04 19:55:46 UTC
From Bugzilla Helper: User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20020823 Netscape/7.0 Description of problem: I'm trying to install Red Hat 8.0. I want to keep my logical volumes as they are (see below.) When I get to the Disk Druid section it reports the following. LVM Volume Groups File System Size (MB) vg00 31808 <-this should be 31812 lvol4 ext2 20048 lvol3 ext2 10240 lvol1 ext2 500 lvol2 ext2 1024 Hard Drives /dev/hda /dev/hda1 ext2 4001 /dev/hda2 vfat 40006 /dev/hda3 swap 518 /dev/hda4 vg00 LVM PV 31816 <-this should be 31812 You'll notice that the reported size of vg00 is different under the LVM heading and the Hard Drives Heading. This is apparently a round off error during calculations. You should be using the actual logical extents rather than MB when determining how much space is used. The output of vgdisplay -v vg00 is below. As it is I can't install Red Hat 8.0 because of this error unless I want to do a complete backup (which I do anyway just in case) then erase everything and start from scratch. I would suggest you get this fixed before 8.1. Thank you. --- Volume group --- VG Name vg00 VG Access read/write VG Status available/resizable VG # 0 MAX LV 256 Cur LV 4 Open LV 4 MAX LV Size 255.99 GB Max PV 256 Cur PV 1 Act PV 1 VG Size 31.07 GB PE Size 4 MB Total PE 7953 (7953 x 4MB = 31812MB Total) Alloc PE / Size 7953 / 31.07 GB Free PE / Size 0 / 0 VG UUID yUU51A-Qok3-tvfS-BbgZ-3ESF-yzUn-PvzB09 --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/vg00/lvol1 VG Name vg00 LV Write Access read/write LV Status available LV # 1 # open 1 LV Size 500 MB Current LE 125 Allocated LE 125 Allocation next free Read ahead sectors 10000 Block device 58:3 --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/vg00/lvol2 VG Name vg00 LV Write Access read/write LV Status available LV # 2 # open 1 LV Size 1 GB Current LE 256 Allocated LE 256 Allocation next free Read ahead sectors 10000 Block device 58:4 --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/vg00/lvol3 VG Name vg00 LV Write Access read/write LV Status available LV # 3 # open 1 LV Size 10 GB Current LE 2560 Allocated LE 2560 Allocation next free Read ahead sectors 10000 Block device 58:5 --- Logical volume --- LV Name /dev/vg00/lvol4 VG Name vg00 LV Write Access read/write LV Status available LV # 4 # open 1 LV Size 19.58 GB Current LE 5012 Allocated LE 5012 Allocation next free Read ahead sectors 10000 Block device 58:6 --- Physical volumes --- PV Name (#) /dev/hda4 (1) PV Status available / allocatable Total PE / Free PE 7953 / 0 Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): How reproducible: Always Steps to Reproduce: 1. Install onto a computer where the logical volumes are already set up the same way as listed in Description. 2. Try to set mount points and watch it crash. 3. Actual Results: It gives an error message about allocating too much hard drive space and won't leave enough for the logical volume. Expected Results: The best result would be for the calculations to be done using the actual logical extents (LE) instead of the MBs. This would eliminate round off errors. I would also like to be able to tell it "I know what I'm doing. Just do what I tell you." Additional info:
Comment 1 Anne Fairchild 2003-01-04 19:59:51 UTC
Created attachment 89129 [details] This was the dump from anaconda when it crashed.
Comment 2 Jeremy Katz 2003-01-08 22:31:52 UTC
Already have changes to read preexisting sizes of volume groups in CVS
Comment 3 Anne Fairchild 2003-01-10 23:05:11 UTC
Does the beta "phoebe" incorporate these changes? I tried phoebe and got the same results.
Comment 4 Jeremy Katz 2003-01-10 23:50:18 UTC
Nope, change was post-phoebe
Comment 5 Brent Fox 2003-05-25 14:54:55 UTC
I'm going through Bugzilla closing some bugs that have been marked as Modified for some period of time. I believe that most of these issues have been fixed, so I'm resolving these bugs as Rawhide. If the bug you are seeing still exists, please reopen this report and mark it as Reopened.