Mailing-List: contact users-help@cloudstack.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: users@cloudstack.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com
 designates 203.166.19.134 as permitted sender)
From: Nitin Mehta <Nitin.Mehta@citrix.com>
To: "users@cloudstack.apache.org" <users@cloudstack.apache.org>
Subject: Re: Old snapshots not deleted
Thread-Topic: Old snapshots not deleted
Thread-Index: AQHOqvld0d74bOtqhU6trfElEVGcJ5m4dnYA
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2013 12:18:14 +0000
Message-ID: <CE4FC43B.28DDA%nitin.mehta@citrix.com>
In-Reply-To: <5229C4C2.6090803@pcextreme.nl>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.2.0.120402
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <0AD07E1F43566C458916E4EFC85F3BD4@citrix.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Hi Lennert,
I recall having seen such an issue. Is it similar to
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CLOUDSTACK-643 ?

Thanks,
-Nitin

On 06/09/13 5:35 PM, "Lennert den Teuling" <lennert@pcextreme.nl> wrote:

>Hi,
>
>I was wondering if somebody is experiencing the same issue. Yesterday we
>found out that the disks of our secondary storage was almost full
>because none of the snapshots that have been deleted (because of
>rotation for example).
>
>The issue seems quite clear (?), cause the commando executed on the SSVM
>doesn't work and the SSVMs tells the manager the command was executed
>successful which it was not.
>
> From /var/log/cloud/systemvm.log on the SSVM:
>Executing: /bin/bash -c rm -f
>/mnt/SecStorage/0bab1727-6381-3daa-980e-8a51fdcbb7cd:snapshots:5:1032:*/sn
>apshots/1/5/1032/lnx-lennert-eu_ROOT-844_20130901160036*
>
>
>It looks like the path is incorrect, see the ":". And is specified
>twice. If you would remove ":snapshots:5:1032:*" the path is correct.
>
>Also the manpages of rm for the "-f" flag states:
>"deletes read-only files immediately, without asking for confirmation.
>When you specify this option and a file does not exist, rm does not
>display a warning message and does not modify the exit status. If you
>specify both -f and -i, rm uses the option that appears last on the
>command line."
>
>Maybe this could be the reason why the SSVM returns success.
>
>I did search for a bug report, but could not find one. Maybe i didn't
>look good enough or this issue isn't known.
>
>We are using CS 4.11 with KVM on Ubuntu. Maybe somebody can dig up the
>logs on their system and see if they also see these (wrong) rm commands
>show up in the log?
>
>--=20
>Met vriendelijke groet / Kind regards,
>
>Lennert den Teuling
>