From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3260062F47 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:26:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 20634F71E for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:26:43 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3951AF711 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:26:41 +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 F072A424C0 for ; Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:26:40 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 16:26:33 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20201106143059.22047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20201106143059.22047-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20201106143059.22047-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1606231495.l7zhwtxuia.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.024 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com, migrate.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [RFC v2 container 3/5] deactivate volumes after storage_migrate X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 15:26:43 -0000 it can't hurt either, and makes it more uniform with qemu migration On November 6, 2020 3:30 pm, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- >=20 > This is probably not worth it, for two reasons: > 1. only local unused volumes are not already deactivated by the existing = code > 2. if nothing else goes wrong, the volumes migrated with storage_migrate > will be deleted anyways >=20 > src/PVE/LXC/Migrate.pm | 5 +++++ > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+) >=20 > diff --git a/src/PVE/LXC/Migrate.pm b/src/PVE/LXC/Migrate.pm > index 94a78c5..7c3536f 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/LXC/Migrate.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/LXC/Migrate.pm > @@ -294,6 +294,11 @@ sub phase1 { > if (my $err =3D $@) { > die "storage migration for '$volid' to storage '$sid' failed - $err= \n"; > } > + > + eval { PVE::Storage::deactivate_volumes($self->{storecfg}, [$volid]); }= ; > + if (my $err =3D $@) { > + $self->log('warn', $err); > + } > } > =20 > my $conffile =3D PVE::LXC::Config->config_file($vmid); > --=20 > 2.20.1 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pve-devel mailing list > pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel >=20 >=20 >=20 =