correct disk removal disqualification calculation. Fixes #1553 #1554
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Previously we refused a disk removal based on disk > pool usage but the intended calculation was disk > pool free space. Hence switch usage for (pool.size - usage) = free space.
|
Ready for review. |
phillxnet
deleted the
1553_incorrect_space_calculation_on_disk_removal
branch
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Previously we refused a disk removal based on disk > pool usage
but the intended calculation was disk > pool free space.
Hence switch usage for (pool.size - usage) = free space.
So now this action is disqualified if disk > pool free space
This accounts for a worst case scenario.
Fixes #1553
Previously a 7.5 GB disk was not allowed to be removed from a 463 GB (2 GB used) pool.
After pr this was allowed. Logging was used during development to confirm figures were as expected.
Details and user experience are available in the linked issue #1553 .