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 [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B99E11FF16F
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 27 May 2025 09:02:49 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 19ADDD0D5;
	Tue, 27 May 2025 09:02:59 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Tue, 27 May 2025 09:02:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1594409888.20674.1748329375230@webmail.proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.34.1748269920.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <mailman.34.1748269920.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.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 -0.105 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
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL          0.1 Meta: its spam
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_1        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 POISEN_SPAM_PILL_3        0.1 random spam to be learned in bayes
 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] Volume live migration concurrency
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>


> Andrei Perapiolkin via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> hat am 26.05.2025 16:31 CEST geschrieben:

> Hi Proxmox Community,
> 
> I'm curious whether there are any standard or guidelines that govern the 
> order in which the methods: /activate_volume, deactivate_volume, path/ 
> are called during VM live migration.
> 
> Assuming the storage plugin supports `live migration`:
> 
> 1. Can/path/ be called before /activate_volume?/

yes

> 2. When /vm /migrates from/node1/ to/node2, /might /activate_volume/ 
> on/node2/ be invoked before /deactivate_volume/ has completed on /node1?
> /

it has to be, for a live migration both the source VM and the target VM need
access to the volume. the migration ensures that only either copy/node is
writing to a shared volume at any given time. for a local volume, the volumes
are independent anyway.

> 3. In the context of live migration: Will Proxmox skip calling 
> /deactivate_volume/ for snapshots that have already been activated? 
> Should the storage plugin explicitly deactivate all snapshots of a 
> volume during migration?

a live migration is not concerned with snapshots of shared volumes, and local
volumes are removed on the source node after the migration has finished..

but maybe you could expand this part?


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel