From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1764B99EE8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:02:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ED8E51C246
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:02:09 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:02:07 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 566BD42966
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:02:07 +0100 (CET)
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 15:02:01 +0100
Message-Id: <20231114140204.27679-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.39.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.079 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [qemuserver.pm, tools.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server/common] fix #4501: improve port
reservation for QEMU TCP migration
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Nov 2023 14:02:40 -0000
Each patch is a different approach for improving the situation and
each subset could be applied. Personally, I like common 2/2, because
it removes the competition for early ports and IMHO the only one
worth considering a full fix, but it is a bit complex.
Another approach (not in the RFC, also could be considered a full fix)
would be to opt-in for a higher expire time for migration ports, add a
mechanism to remove the reservation and have vm_start_nolock() remove
the reservation after it made sure that QEMU got the port.
qemu-server:
Fiona Ebner (1):
partially fix #4501: migration: start vm: move port reservation and
usage closer together
PVE/QemuServer.pm | 20 ++++++++++++++------
1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
common:
Fiona Ebner (2):
partially fix #4501: next unused port: bump port reservation
expiretime
fix #4501: next unused port: work around issue with too short
expiretime
src/PVE/Tools.pm | 21 +++++++++++++++++++--
1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
--
2.39.2