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 905B08816D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:01:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7EBA324B8F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:00:58 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 0D89524B83
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:00:58 +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 C6979453B2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:00:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <7c98a8c9-bf80-383c-f282-a6af80c460ef@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Jan 2022 10:00:47 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20211222135257.3242938-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20211222135257.3242938-20-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211222135257.3242938-20-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.672 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -1.057 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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. [storage.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 storage 2/4] storage_migrate: pull out
snapshot decision
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: Wed, 05 Jan 2022 09:01:28 -0000
Am 22.12.21 um 14:52 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
> into new top-level helper for re-use with remote migration.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
> ---
> new in v3
>
> PVE/Storage.pm | 14 ++++++++++----
> 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index 05be3dd..4f3a44a 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -643,6 +643,14 @@ my $volname_for_storage = sub {
> }
> };
>
> +# whether a migration snapshot is needed for a given storage
> +sub storage_migrate_snapshot {
> + my ($cfg, $storeid) = @_;
> + my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid);
> +
> + return $scfg->{type} eq 'zfspool' || $scfg->{type} eq 'btrfs';
> +}
> +
> sub storage_migrate {
> my ($cfg, $volid, $target_sshinfo, $target_storeid, $opts, $logfunc) = @_;
>
> @@ -688,10 +696,8 @@ sub storage_migrate {
>
> my $migration_snapshot;
> if (!defined($snapshot)) {
> - if ($scfg->{type} eq 'zfspool' || $scfg->{type} eq 'btrfs') {
> - $migration_snapshot = 1;
> - $snapshot = '__migration__';
> - }
> + $migration_snapshot = storage_migrate_snapshot->($cfg, $target_storeid);
The call is wrong, because of the ->
And why base the decision on the target storage rather than keeping it
based on the source storage? That breaks migration from e.g. lvm-thin to
btrfs, because it now tries to use a snapshot and doesn't find any
common transfer format anymore.
> + $snapshot = '__migration__' if $migration_snapshot;
> }
>
> my @formats = volume_transfer_formats($cfg, $volid, $target_volid, $snapshot, $base_snapshot, $with_snapshots);