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 2CBFD9EFB
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 281B22410C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:01 +0200 (CEST)
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 id 63B7E24101
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:00 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3F28642602
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <8e69575b-40fa-bc91-2276-0dcf483e84ca@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:21:54 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.8.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220421112659.74011-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20220421112659.74011-12-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <29993f47-77f1-2701-e8d6-dd11a6b21a29@proxmox.com>
 <78d40de3-50fa-9f51-9542-b26f4eb7a6f9@proxmox.com>
 <d7e71c32-2370-9e18-a430-7ad614b1c002@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <d7e71c32-2370-9e18-a430-7ad614b1c002@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.011 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           -1.857 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager 1/3] ui: restore: disallow empty
 storage selection if it wouldn't work
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, 27 Apr 2022 08:22:01 -0000

Am 27.04.22 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 25.04.22 09:28, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> Am 23.04.22 um 11:38 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
>>> On 21.04.22 13:26, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>>>> Namely, if there is a storage in the backup configuration that's not
>>>> available on the current node.
>>>
>>> Better than the status quo, but in the long run all the "force all volumes to a single storage"
>>> on restore and also migrate isn't ideal for the case where one or more storages do not exist on
>>> the target node. An per-volume override would be nicer, but may require some gui adaptions to
>>> present that in a sensible way with good UX.
>>>
>>
>> In the UI, it could simply be part of the disk grid (proposed in patch
>> manager 3/3), only showing up for drives selected from the backup?
> 
> exactly what I thought too.

My first attempt using a widgetcolumn with a storage selector failed, as
it would issue an API call for each disk...I'll try to come up with some
way of sharing/fixing the store to make it work. In v3, I forgot to
group the override settings in a fieldset, will do so in v4.

> 
>>
>> In the back-end for migration, we have a storage-storage map, but here
>> we'd need a drive-storage map. It'd be possible to extend the 'storage'
>> parameter for the create/restore API call to be such a map, but I wonder
>> if going for a 'restore-drives' parameter being such a map (and
>> replacing the proposed 'preserve-drives' parameter) would be better?
> 
> hmm, possibly
> 
>>
>> The downside is, we'd have to choose between
>> A) preserve disk and config
>> B) preserve disk as unused
>> for the drives that are not present in the backup. A) would be more
>> convenient in the partial restore context, but B) is the current
>> default. Thus we need to keep B) if 'restore-drives' is not specified at
>> all for backwards-compatibility, but can choose A) if 'restore-drives'
>> is specified. But doing so seems a little inconsistent regarding user
>> expectation.
> 
> would a more general src:dest map help, for example (just to give the very
> rough direction meaning here):
> 
> not present or `scsi1:backup` <- would be restored as in the backup (config)
> `scsi1:store=foo` <- as in config put on another storage
> `scsi1:preserve` <- preserve from existing installation being overwritten
> 
> The actual left/right hand sides would need to get fleshed out to fit our
> use cases best, but 

I sent a v3 yesterday with something similar.