From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 21C881FF0E0 for ; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 09:56:16 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AB1DD21454; Thu, 09 Jul 2026 09:56:14 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 9 Jul 2026 09:56:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC storage, qemu-server] offload full/live clone to storage backend To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , Ciro Iriarte , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <6a4416f5.01f0a1da.1533d8.2fdf@mx.google.com> <1783430000.wo44ge3ggk.astroid@yuna.none> <90aae63f-8d67-4a26-ab6b-ed32fd1537ce@proxmox.com> <1783500024.h4hi20lbpy.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <1783500024.h4hi20lbpy.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1783583759182 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.030 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: SUBIJDFEJVJR2QPI5CNXZDGOJZ572Y6M X-Message-ID-Hash: SUBIJDFEJVJR2QPI5CNXZDGOJZ572Y6M X-MailFrom: f.ebner@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 08.07.26 um 10:43 AM schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: > On July 8, 2026 10:17 am, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>> >>>> Out of scope >>>> ------------ >>>> - Cross-storage and format-converting clones (inherently >>>> host-mediated). >>> >>> agreed. cross-storage could potentially be a follow-up, and we might >>> want to account for it in the copy_image signature/parameters? >> >> I think we'd need an abstraction similar to >> volume_{export,import}{,formats} so that plugins don't deal with >> internal information from other plugins? > > I guess a valid baseline assumption is that offloaded copies can only > ever occur between two storage instances of the same plugin type? how > the plugin then decides that the two instances can be used for copying > or not is up to the plugin (e.g., zfs can send/recv locally, a storage > appliance might have a copy feature between namespaces, but not > between storage pools or appliances, ..). > > volume_export/import can be split like that because we lower to some > transport format, but that is not possible for offloading, which is > opaque from PVE's point of view.. Different storage types based on the same underlying technology (e.g. ZFS) could still do it. That said, I don't mind not designing for this but just for offloading between storages of the same type.