From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9174D1FF16C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:16:46 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EC22432935; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:17:13 +0200 (CEST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:08:07 +1200 To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <mailman.472.1724973432.302.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> From: Severen Redwood via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Precedence: list Cc: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz> X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> 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/> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> Subject: [pve-devel] Continuing on making the VM ID suggestion strategy configurable Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0715568539254195369==" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> --===============0715568539254195369== Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Return-Path: <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz> 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 DAD6CC74EB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:17:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AE943328E9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:16:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz (mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz [120.138.20.239]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 01:16:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost (extmx1-new.vps.sitehost.co.nz [127.0.0.1]) by mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69831180C09; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:08:18 +1200 (NZST) X-Virus-Scanned: SiteHost Virus/Spam Prevention on mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -3.45 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.45 tagged_above=-100 required=5 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.55] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no Received: from mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Bi5UHoQ-R-Aw; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:08:14 +1200 (NZST) Received: from yggdrasill (oep.nct.sitehost.co.nz [120.138.23.30]) by mx3.ext.sitehost.co.nz (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3FEFD180B19; Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:08:08 +1200 (NZST) Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2024 11:08:07 +1200 From: Severen Redwood <severen.redwood@sitehost.co.nz> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: Continuing on making the VM ID suggestion strategy configurable Message-ID: <tzwlxcv5z7qacnzkaggl6sz67xsg7cpcktyqc4rulh5nnxm7vy@dviin2xi67un> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.400 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_05 -0.5 Bayes spam probability is 1 to 5% DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Hi everyone, Something I've been running into with PVE is that VM IDs may be re-used and that the UI will in fact suggest the smallest available ID (via the `/cluster/nextid` endpoint), regardless of whether that ID has previously been used or not. This can cause issues with PBS as it keys backups by VM ID, which is detailed on this Bugzilla issue [1], so for brevity I won't replicate the discussion here. There's a patch series [2] from a few months ago which addresses this by making the VM ID suggestion strategy configurable with the following options: 1. Use the smallest ID that is not currently in use (current behaviour). 2. Use one greater than the largest ID in use. 3. Use the smallest ID that is neither currently nor previously in use. In particular, option 3 is the one that would best solve the problem for me. However, the patches are stuck on some unresolved feedback and the author (CC'd in) seems to have either paused or abandoned work on the feature. For this reason, I'm interested in picking up where they left off to get the feature to an acceptable state. Is this OK? And how feasible is it that this feature would ultimately be accepted? At the moment, the only nontrivial issue raised with the patches seems to be regarding where the list of previously used VM IDs should be stored, which I believe should be resolvable. Thanks, Severen [1]: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=4369#c13 [2]: https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/D1RYIAHXBOIH.RM5K01KGND9T@proxmox.com/t/ P.S. This is my first time using a mailing list, so please let me know about any inadvertent breaches of etiquette :) --===============0715568539254195369== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel --===============0715568539254195369==--