From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 B9420604D2 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:55:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AC60718C8C for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (pmg.fws.fr [51.91.175.36]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 0DE3D18C81 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BC060C18BC for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (zmproxy.fws.fr [10.29.1.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A74B5C0276 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9DB7B8A22C6; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:41 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8596D8A22C7; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:41 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmproxy.fws.fr 8596D8A22C7 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=firewall-services.com; s=7DAD15A2-D84A-11E9-8F77-BEC4FAA34EBC; t=1606899281; bh=rWOfqhMo0eR8zLu8Z6XOtHp7vdLXqrlivRFGRgMKoT0=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=GrGjjCLw8h/61aAuTeLdPjmgq4kPvDmfW7D2VLiuwDpargu8JefAalQEfZK4UEosR WUVw+20Ty/Apw7KJLCawDPUvm4khxjRn2XhQ9XDkCHN7cAH94tFg3OK7Mjvie20YPj tO5b/jHJVbuGm9JvWTqXHvend0myZbKCoUZjyVYPGffrk0BZnoNyxidEpvdmS4oWxj 48NrdaVRbNb1nEkHvJg/L8BwgK0m20SI1gj4Cw/K5qyBpKpYDok49XGGxDz4qAjlE7 JFEteOF9HXCf4h77uIz28R7pId5wK+kYIjQkyfkWD+nJ7oVbAnHSEhKQEHATJP6s71 jaG4s/Wvv5kUw== Received: from zmstore.fws.fr (zmstore.fws.fr [10.29.3.15]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802138A22C6 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:41 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:54:41 +0100 (CET) From: Daniel Berteaud To: Proxmox VE user list Message-ID: <2120552064.47698.1606899281402.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> In-Reply-To: <20201202174718.0bdf3912@batzmaru.gol.ad.jp> References: <20201202171102.03c7f2e2@batzmaru.gol.ad.jp> <20758633.47066.1606897064143.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> <20201202174718.0bdf3912@batzmaru.gol.ad.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.29.1.17] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3980 (ZimbraWebClient - GC86 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3980) Thread-Topic: Live VM migration 6.3 to 6.2 fails Thread-Index: 3k1DsrSrpJBEiDmPrBbE5J34NCrw0Q== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.009 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [firewall-services.com, fws.fr] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Live VM migration 6.3 to 6.2 fails X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 08:55:13 -0000 ----- Le 2 D=C3=A9c 20, =C3=A0 9:47, Christian Balzer chibi@gol.com a =C3= =A9crit : >>=20 > If that is really the case (qemu migrations between minor versions have > worked in the past, at least sometimes), then this is actually worse. >=20 > As I wrote, some 6.2 nodes don't have that issue and indeed they have qem= u > 5.1 which was brought in with 6.2-13. > So no version upgrade flashing warning lights going off in your brain and > if one had not upgraded all nodes, the same would have happened in a > cluster that was nominally still 6.2? > That's rather... scary. >=20 If you got QEMU 5.1 with pve 6.2, I guess you're using either the pvetest o= r no-subscription repo. In which case, it's up to you to check for changelo= g and important version changes, as those repo are kinda "rolling updates" If you want peace of mind on this front, you should pay access to the enter= prise repo, which have more stable updates Regards, Daniel --=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ ] =09 Daniel Berteaud=20 FIREWALL-SERVICES SAS, La s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des r=C3=A9seaux=20 Soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de Services en Logiciels Libres=20 T=C3=A9l : +33.5 56 64 15 32=20 Matrix: @dani:fws.fr=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ | https://www.firewall-services.com ]