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 91AD61FF189
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:37:53 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D86531D308;
Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:37:39 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: "DERUMIER, Alexandre" <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>,
"pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <137183061.6481.1743766626183@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <3e516016a970e52e5a1014dbcd6cf9507581da74.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
References: <20250311102905.2680524-1-alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com>
<mailman.965.1741689000.293.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
<476324959.4386.1743581433778@webmail.proxmox.com>
<3e516016a970e52e5a1014dbcd6cf9507581da74.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
Importance: Normal
X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev75
X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.047 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC 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_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [storage.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 qemu-server 11/11] qcow2: add external
snapshot support
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
> DERUMIER, Alexandre <alexandre.derumier@groupe-cyllene.com> hat am 04.04.2025 13:31 CEST geschrieben:
> Hi Fabian,
>
> >>the first one is the renaming of a blockdev while it is used, which
> >>is currently done like this:
> >>-- "link" snapshot path to make it available under old and new name
> >>-- handle blockdev additions/reopening/backing-file updates/deletions
> >>on the qemu layer
> >>-- remove old snapshot path link
> >>-- if LVM, rename actual volume (for non-LVM, linking followed by
> >>unlinking the source is effectively a rename already)
>
> >>I wonder whether that couldn't be made more straight-forward by doing
> >>-- rename snapshot volume/image (qemu must already have the old name
> >>open anyway and should be able to continue using it)
> >>-- do blockdev additions/reopening/backing-file updates/deletions on
> >>the qemu layer
>
> >>or is there an issue/check in qemu somewhere that prevents this
> >>approach? if not, we could just introduce a "volume_snapshot_rename"
> >>or extend rename_volume with a snapshot parameter..
>
> I have done tests this last 2 days, and it's working fine indeed. (I
> have done test with fio running during the snapshot rename/reopen, no
> problem).
>
> so I'm using Storage::rename_volume now with snapshot param
>
>
> >>the second thing that happens is deleting a snapshot volume/path,
> >>without deleting the whole snapshot.. that one we could easily
> >>support by extending volume_snapshot_delete by extending the $running
> >>parameter (e.g., passing "2") or adding a new one to signify that all
> >>the housekeeping was already done, and just the actual snapshot
> >>volume should be deleted. this shouldn't be an issue provided all
> >>such calls are guarded by first checking that we are using external
> >>snapshots..
>
> I have reused vdisk_free for this one, as I'm seeing a comment about
> $running deprecation in Storage.pm
>
> # FIXME PVE 8.x remove $running parameter (needs APIAGE reset)
> sub volume_snapshot_delete {
> my ($cfg, $volid, $snap, $running) = @_;
>
>
> vdisk_free have also a cluster_lock_storage, so for lvm , I think it's
> better.
>
> (I have introduce a $snap param to vdisk_free, to only delete the
> specific snapshot, and not the whole chain)
vdisk_free is definitely wrong - you are not deleting a vdisk, just a
snapshot.. I think this might be an argument for keeping $running ;)
you can call the lock inside volume_snapshot_delete, right?
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel