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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A806D6ACFF for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:48:22 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 93DC92F91A for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:47:52 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 7F75E2F90E for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:47:51 +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 43A37446DE for ; Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:47:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 09:47:45 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <50ed1cad64907f845b0b545fdebf3af8ede41c7b.camel@odiso.com> <8cdf4d6536899de1c6a6a43ff7fa21e28ac87331.camel@odiso.com> In-Reply-To: <8cdf4d6536899de1c6a6a43ff7fa21e28ac87331.camel@odiso.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1611564401.3sjx0tyrat.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.026 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] qemu live migration: bigger downtime recently 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: Mon, 25 Jan 2021 08:48:22 -0000 On January 23, 2021 9:38 am, aderumier@odiso.com wrote: > about qemu version, =20 >=20 > theses vms was started around 6 november, after an update of the qemu > package the 4 november. >=20 >=20 > looking at proxmox repo, I think it should be 5.1.0-4 or -5. >=20 >=20 > pve-qemu-kvm-dbg_5.1.0-4_amd64.deb 29-Oct-2020 17:28 =20 > 75705544 > pve-qemu-kvm-dbg_5.1.0-5_amd64.deb 04-Nov-2020 17:41 =20 > 75737556 > pve-qemu-kvm-dbg_5.1.0-6_amd64.deb 05-Nov-2020 18:08 =20 > 75693264 >=20 >=20 > Could it be a known bug introduced by new backups dirty-bitmap patches, > and fixed later ? (I see a -6 version one day later) >=20 pve-qemu-kvm (5.1.0-6) pve; urgency=3Dmedium * migration/block-dirty-bitmap: avoid telling QEMU that the bitmap migrat= ion is active longer than required -- Proxmox Support Team Thu, 05 Nov 2020 18:59:40 += 0100 sound like that could be the case? ;) =