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 07DE871F35 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 09:00:02 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E9AC82EE76 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:59:31 +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 1184A2EE68 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:59:31 +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 D770D456D4 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:59:24 +0200 (CEST) To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20210812110111.73883-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <94d9c26e-098f-db8e-b0fd-6ef52a220667@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2021 08:59:11 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20210812110111.73883-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.029 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 -1.964 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. [abstractconfig.pm, proxmox.com, replicationconfig.pm, config.pm, qemuconfig.pm, btrfsplugin.pm, zfspoolplugin.pm, storage.pm, replication.pm, plugin.pm] URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES v3] fix #3111: fix interaction of snapshot operations with replication 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, 06 Oct 2021 07:00:02 -0000 Any feedback for this? Am 12.08.21 um 13:00 schrieb Fabian Ebner: > For more context, see also: > https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2021-August/049694.html > > Changes from v2: > * Many new patches, as the approach is different: > For one, only replication snapshots that are blocking rollback > are removed. Second, consider more snapshot candidates when > probing for an incremental replication base. Last, instead of > directly running replication after rollback, prevent snapshot > deletion if it might be the current incremental replication > base. > > Many thanks to Fabian G. for discussing those ideas with me! > > All patches are new in v3, except guest-common patch #1, which > hasn't changed much, and would fix some issues already by itself. > > I think nothing requires an explicit dependency bump, but some things, > like "remove only the real blockers", will only start working when all > the pieces are in place. > > > storage: > > Fabian Ebner (3): > zfspool: add zfs_get_sorted_snapshot_list helper > zfspool: add blockers parameter to volume_snapshot_is_possible > test: zfspool: extend some rollback is possible tests with new > blockers parameter > > PVE/Storage.pm | 4 +-- > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 2 +- > PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 5 ++- > PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm | 65 +++++++++++++++------------------- > test/run_test_zfspoolplugin.pl | 65 +++++++++++++++++++++++++--------- > 5 files changed, 85 insertions(+), 56 deletions(-) > > > container: > > Fabian Ebner (1): > config: rollback is possible: add blockers parameter > > src/PVE/LXC/Config.pm | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > qemu-server: > > Fabian Ebner (1): > config: rollback is possible: add blockers parameter > > PVE/QemuConfig.pm | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > guest-common: > > Fabian Ebner (7): > partially fix #3111: snapshot rollback: improve removing replication > snapshots > config: rollback: factor out helper for removing replication snapshots > partially fix #3111: further improve removing replication snapshots > replication: remove unused variable and style fixes > replication: pass guest config to find_common_replication_snapshot > partially fix #3111: replication: be less picky when selecting > incremental base > fix #3111 config: snapshot delete: check if replication still needs it > > src/PVE/AbstractConfig.pm | 120 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---- > src/PVE/Replication.pm | 66 ++++++++++++++++---- > src/PVE/ReplicationConfig.pm | 14 +++++ > 3 files changed, 177 insertions(+), 23 deletions(-) >