From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <aderumier@odiso.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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B86676AE1C for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:26:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AA1052FE34 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:26:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail-wr1-x42b.google.com (mail-wr1-x42b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42b]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 3B2D02FE1F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:26:10 +0100 (CET) Received: by mail-wr1-x42b.google.com with SMTP id m1so10778342wrq.12 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:26:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=odiso-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to:references:user-agent :mime-version; bh=Arp/3LuctR/xN8kW1YBvF+zrfljCmL8h0yohGJdlz5M=; b=BSK8vRUl7G14vrBIEt+b5zBuBXkA+DtgMZdcBPMpwyeBw9Pitm97LQ78lnf4BV5TeU WHEso1SZqzT9p38dxvwJE6IybKdkQlUxD/H9MH2y5KoIux5F5ldL1txbaEDoGJLesL1y pT4FMnoEYIA7rV8Jft58hvBBWMKzKFRC7P1vma5Id7G/4RpDNc5SbCMS5B+auqIUPx1F nDcz9+x+OpPTe1hr5CnIcoBirXp0JV5tgk4Ew4u/f40pE4c4svipRiCmMIwO3ZqoGrmd eEDGXjj9p7gyMS6YUTaWMBvBQpj8Bt727Bqxc69Ucye0D2GJIoOcMRO8RHJzXNoGp+mX gWbg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:subject:from:to:date:in-reply-to :references:user-agent:mime-version; bh=Arp/3LuctR/xN8kW1YBvF+zrfljCmL8h0yohGJdlz5M=; b=I1mqUqdHuk1R7zLmJ5gjzyAeEiXyiZr1/JEaWhlcIuLD8B0xBrZsN1lBJi35ocbfD2 prsgmaz6qTVWmEgpPOzV6z6y3Vld2Ci4/+D9LNAYP6y9oOBMdqqoO50h41kyM+MtrhZ8 veyxytl8K4gZt2wXCaE0YagskVYpH7B3ITLBHGBkKr/rfesFXALT85PrhB4dbvN0bJGH J5z57s5Wl5ZwPH7cfR7h2tbxnzu4QYz7EA50aLNAeR/S3rC0wtPUSzrJbfiL+xoVx6Zy 5WzG9Bc2zsFdKwGKEwPrtK8eKoS01elxrrx+pWFBWpAGEtSRUM3EE1cgLwV71I90k1dF 03og== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530oeAnoyLPGlP4h1VfLB7Uf6iPBl3Yb7U/DP7XI3489UfYzUA19 Cqm6teAnQjABIijLpxrn7F/GmZXzt5XG8j14 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJx5L9ScSeWJwGdBdinmbh2IIsbtfO4cHXg/UipagVc715IxzwrqHmuWQS1kdkrPMdRYJPaCfw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:114e:: with SMTP id d14mr904192wrx.176.1611566763778; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:26:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from ?IPv6:2a0a:1580:0:1::100c? (ovpn1.odiso.net. [2a0a:1580:2000::3f]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id s19sm24500711wrf.72.2021.01.25.01.26.02 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Mon, 25 Jan 2021 01:26:03 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <b5bf424187d8e4d1a2c00cee7ad0a63863bd2c78.camel@odiso.com> From: aderumier@odiso.com To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 10:26:01 +0100 In-Reply-To: <1611564401.3sjx0tyrat.astroid@nora.none> References: <b08a69e25cdfe7615bd192ab07b169a0100fadeb.camel@odiso.com> <ca2fa17ffd670a60e72071ff401139c104d1e854.camel@odiso.com> <50ed1cad64907f845b0b545fdebf3af8ede41c7b.camel@odiso.com> <8cdf4d6536899de1c6a6a43ff7fa21e28ac87331.camel@odiso.com> <1611564401.3sjx0tyrat.astroid@nora.none> User-Agent: Evolution 3.38.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.170 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 HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] qemu live migration: bigger downtime recently 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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:26:13 -0000 > > pve-qemu-kvm (5.1.0-6) pve; urgency=medium > > * migration/block-dirty-bitmap: avoid telling QEMU that the bitmap > migration > is active longer than required > > -- Proxmox Support Team <support@proxmox.com> Thu, 05 Nov 2020 > 18:59:40 +0100 > > sound like that could be the case? ;) yes, I was not sure about this. So,I was just out of luck when I have upgraded ^_^ I have tried to change dirty-bitmaps=0 in set_migration_caps, but it don't fix it. So, I think I'm good to plan some migrations with downtime. Thanks for your response ! Alexandre