Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ceph install wizard: fix #3597: don't autofill network

[Stefan Hrdlicka <s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>]

Tried it and works as expected.

I can't answer the original mail, since I joined the mailing list a bit later :).

Tested-by: Stefan Hrdlicka<s.hrdlicka@proxmox.com>

On 6/1/22 12:27, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
> Can someone take a look at this? Patch should still apply.
>
> On 5/2/22 16:05, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>> By not auto filling the Ceph public network we can avoid accidential
>> clicks on 'Next' which will cause the first Mon to be created with a
>> potentially wrong network. While that is fixable, it is tedious and can
>> be easily avoided by making the user always select the network to use.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>   www/manager6/ceph/CephInstallWizard.js | 1 +
>>   1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/www/manager6/ceph/CephInstallWizard.js 
>> b/www/manager6/ceph/CephInstallWizard.js
>> index 59458b0d..bebfc319 100644
>> --- a/www/manager6/ceph/CephInstallWizard.js
>> +++ b/www/manager6/ceph/CephInstallWizard.js
>> @@ -372,6 +372,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.ceph.CephInstallWizard', {
>>               name: 'network',
>>               value: '',
>>               fieldLabel: 'Public Network IP/CIDR',
>> +            autoSelect: false,
>>               bind: {
>>               allowBlank: '{configuration}',
>>               },
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>
>
From f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com  Thu Jun  2 16:34:12 2022
Return-Path: <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
X-Original-To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
Delivered-To: pve-devel@lists.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 B0F40750CA
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2022 16:34:12 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A00D06451
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2022 16:33:42 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E7BE46446
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2022 16:33:40 +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 B8EB14349C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu,  2 Jun 2022 16:33:40 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 16:33:34 +0200
From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220524114116.2543812-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220524114116.2543812-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid)
Message-Id: <1654180326.vcply64b2j.astroid@nora.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.172 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
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [proxmox.com, replicationstate.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC PATCH guest-common 1/2] ReplicationState:
 purge state from non local vms
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: Thu, 02 Jun 2022 14:34:12 -0000

On May 24, 2022 1:41 pm, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> when running replication, we don't want to keep replication states for
> non-local vms. Normally this would not be a problem, since on migration,
> we transfer the states anyway, but when the ha-manager steals a vm, it
> cannot do that. In that case, having an old state lying around is
> harmful, since the code does not expect the state to be out-of-sync
> with the actual snapshots on disk.
>=20
> One such problem is the following:
>=20
> Replicate vm 100 from node A to node B and C, and activate HA. When node
> A dies, it will be relocated to e.g. node B and start replicate from
> there. If node B now had an old state lying around for it's sync to node
> C, it might delete the common base snapshots of B and C and cannot sync
> again.
>=20
> Deleting the state for all non local guests fixes that issue, since it
> always starts fresh, and the potentially existing old state cannot be
> valid anyway since we just relocated the vm here (from a dead node).
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>

the logic seems sound, the state *is* invalid/outdated once the guest=20
has been stolen..

Reviewed-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>

> ---
> i tested it in various configurations and with live migration, offline
> migration, ha relocation etc. and did not find an issue, but since
> the check was already there and commented out, maybe someone has a
> better idea why this might not be a good thing, so sending as RFC
>=20
>  src/PVE/ReplicationState.pm | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/src/PVE/ReplicationState.pm b/src/PVE/ReplicationState.pm
> index 0a5e410..8eebb42 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/ReplicationState.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/ReplicationState.pm
> @@ -215,7 +215,7 @@ sub purge_old_states {
>  	my $tid =3D $plugin->get_unique_target_id($jobcfg);
>  	my $vmid =3D $jobcfg->{guest};
>  	$used_tids->{$vmid}->{$tid} =3D 1
> -	    if defined($vms->{ids}->{$vmid}); # && $vms->{ids}->{$vmid}->{node}=
 eq $local_node;
> +	    if defined($vms->{ids}->{$vmid}) && $vms->{ids}->{$vmid}->{node} eq=
 $local_node;
>      }
> =20
>      my $purge_state =3D sub {
> --=20
> 2.30.2
>=20
>=20
>=20
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>=20
>=20
>=20