Use statfs Bfree when calculating FS overhead #2194
Closed
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Using Bavail takes into account root reservation, so we ended up
failing if 5% + 5.5% is not available.
This resulted in importing to just barely big enough DVs failed on
filesystem volumes that reserve some space for root.
Addresses bz#2059057
What this PR does / why we need it:
Significantly smaller change than #2193 - easier to backport.
The choice of 5.5% was meant to be larger than the root reservation typically chosen.
Choosing different behaviour for FS overhead will require us to change the numbers chosen, which is too involved.
Why not #2193: complicated, and removes the space validation.
Why not remove the space reservation: kubevirt runs unprivileged, and might bump into the limits for unprivileged processes.
Also it seems other storage providers for kubernetes don't do a space reservation for root.
No tests - I'm not sure we have a storage provider for CI which has root reservation, so I'm having trouble reproducing the scenario for failure.
Which issue(s) this PR fixes (optional, in
fixes #<issue number>(, fixes #<issue_number>, ...)
format, will close the issue(s) when PR gets merged):https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2059057
Release note: