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 EB05160FBC
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E8F9429D1F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:38 +0100 (CET)
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 BC7DA29D12
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:37 +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 96951457B8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:37 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <fff0232e-203c-1c18-1dde-82f3dba4ab90@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:36 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.4.1
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220114115521.43773-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<38476974-2ebb-e0e1-af58-600a8777e34a@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <38476974-2ebb-e0e1-af58-600a8777e34a@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.136 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 -0.001 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] fix #3424: vzdump: cleanup: wait
for active 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: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 12:39:39 -0000
Am 14.01.22 um 13:21 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 14.01.22 12:55, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> As replication and backup can happen at the same time, the vzdump
>> snapshot might be actively used by replication when backup tries
>> to cleanup, resulting in a not (or only partially) removed snapshot
>> and locked (snapshot-delete) container.
>>
>> Wait up to 10 minutes for any ongoing replication. If replication
>> doesn't finish in time, the fact that there is no attempt to remove
>> the snapshot means that there's no risk for the container to end up in
>> a locked state. And the beginning of the next backup will force remove
>> the left-over snapshot, which will very likely succeed even at the
>> storage layer, because the replication really should be done by then
>> (subsequent replications shouldn't matter as they don't need to
>> re-transfer the vzdump snapshot).
>>
>> Suggested-by: Fabian Grünbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>>
>> VM backups are not affected by this, because they don't use
>> storage/config snapshots, but use pve-qemu's block layer.
>>
>> Decided to go for this approach rather than replication waiting on
>> backup, because "full backup can take much longer than replication
>> usually does", and even if we time out, we can just skip the removal
>> for now and have the next backup do it.
>>
>> src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm | 11 +++++++++--
>> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm
>> index b7f7463..10edae9 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm
>> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ use File::Path;
>> use POSIX qw(strftime);
>>
>> use PVE::Cluster qw(cfs_read_file);
>> +use PVE::GuestHelpers;
>> use PVE::INotify;
>> use PVE::LXC::Config;
>> use PVE::LXC;
>> @@ -476,8 +477,14 @@ sub cleanup {
>> }
>>
>> if ($task->{cleanup}->{remove_snapshot}) {
>> - $self->loginfo("cleanup temporary 'vzdump' snapshot");
>> - PVE::LXC::Config->snapshot_delete($vmid, 'vzdump', 0);
>> + $self->loginfo("checking/waiting for replication..");
>
> do we know if replication is setup at this stage? as I'd like to avoid
> logging that if that's not the case to avoid user confusion.
>
No, but I can add a check for it in v2.
>> + eval {
>> + PVE::GuestHelpers::guest_migration_lock($vmid, 600, sub {
>> + $self->loginfo("cleanup temporary 'vzdump' snapshot");
>> + PVE::LXC::Config->snapshot_delete($vmid, 'vzdump', 0);
>> + });
>> + };
>> + die "snapshot 'vzdump' was not (fully) removed - $@" if $@;
>> }
>> }
>>
>