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 C723668EF5
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  1 Mar 2021 11:20:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BD2621D85A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  1 Mar 2021 11:19:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (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 3C89F1D850
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  1 Mar 2021 11:19:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 04CC941D25
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  1 Mar 2021 11:19:31 +0100 (CET)
To: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210301094224.22203-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <03e08983-92d5-72c3-bce8-9f0ba98b3d18@proxmox.com>
 <59858abd-5032-2130-1aae-db734ecd8a50@proxmox.com>
 <c1a3b388-a734-8827-10f0-e5cbf3faebba@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <d213515b-b961-dd9c-8ef2-b434ce61a9d5@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:19:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c1a3b388-a734-8827-10f0-e5cbf3faebba@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A           -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 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 qemu-server] fix #3324: clone disk: use
 larger blocksize for EFI disk when possible
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, 01 Mar 2021 10:20:01 -0000

Am 01.03.21 um 11:13 schrieb Stefan Reiter:
> On 3/1/21 11:06 AM, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> Am 01.03.21 um 10:54 schrieb Stefan Reiter:
>>> On 3/1/21 10:42 AM, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>>>> Moving to Ceph is very slow when bs=1. Instead, use the biggest 
>>>> possible power
>>>> of two <= 1024. At the moment our EFI image sizes are multiples of 
>>>> 1024, so
>>>> just using 1024 wouldn't be a problem, but this feels more 
>>>> future-proof.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>>>> ---
>>>>
>>>> I did not see an way for 'qemu-img dd' to use a larger blocksize 
>>>> while still
>>>> specifying the exact total size if it is not a multiple of the 
>>>> blocksize.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Could it make sense to just set the block size equal to the image 
>>> size with count=1 ? Since the images will always be very small anyway...
>>>
>>
>> Note that AAVMF_VARS.fd is 64 MiB. Are blocksizes that big a good idea?
>>
> 
> That'd be too much, but the VARS file shouldn't be copied anyway? Only 
> the efidisk attached to the VM?
> 

AFAICT that's the file used for the EFI disk.

>>>>   PVE/QemuServer.pm | 10 +++++++++-
>>>>   1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
>>>> index f401baf..e579cdf 100644
>>>> --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm
>>>> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
>>>> @@ -6991,7 +6991,15 @@ sub clone_disk {
>>>>           # that is given by the OVMF_VARS.fd
>>>>           my $src_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file});
>>>>           my $dst_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $newvolid);
>>>> -        run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, 
>>>> "bs=1", "count=$size",
>>>> +
>>>> +        # Ceph doesn't like too small blocksize, see bug #3324
>>>> +        my $bs = 1;
>>>> +        while ($bs < $size && $bs < 1024 && $size % $bs == 0) {
>>>> +            $bs *= 2;
>>>> +        }
>>>> +        my $count = $size / $bs;
>>>> +
>>>> +        run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, 
>>>> "bs=$bs", "count=$count",
>>>>               "if=$src_path", "of=$dst_path"]);
>>>>           } else {
>>>>           qemu_img_convert($drive->{file}, $newvolid, $size, 
>>>> $snapname, $sparseinit);
>>>>