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 E7E4C62191 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:32:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E60131A6C9 for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:32:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (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 787761A6BE for ; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:32:20 +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 4BA33460BD; Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:32:20 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 15:32:13 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Roland , Fabian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20211222135257.3242938-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20211222135257.3242938-17-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <5a3846bc-04bc-ed4d-4e2e-38a9911390aa@proxmox.com> <462e37fd-5e74-e372-6cac-80069033a361@web.de> <554040de-09d6-974b-143a-80c2d66b9573@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <<554040de-09d6-974b-143a-80c2d66b9573@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1642602521.85uibes5ne.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.216 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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] [PATCH v3 qemu-server 09/10] migrate: add remote migration handling 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: Wed, 19 Jan 2022 14:32:20 -0000 On January 11, 2022 9:19 am, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 04.01.22 17:44, Roland wrote: >>>> =C2=A0 +sub phase2_start_remote_cluster { >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 my ($self, $vmid, $params) =3D @_; >>>> + >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 die "insecure migration to remote cluster not impl= emented\n" >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if $params->{migrate_opts}->{type} ne 'websocket'; >>>> + >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 my $remote_vmid =3D $self->{opts}->{remote}->{vmid= }; >>>> + >>>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 my $res =3D PVE::Tunnel::write_tunnel($self->{tunn= el}, 10, >>>> "start", $params); >>> >>> 10 seconds feels a bit short to me. >=20 > @Fabian(s): >=20 > Why not use the same as vm_start_nolock + some buffer? E.g., >=20 > ($params->{timeout} // config_aware_timeout($conf, $resume)) + 10; >=20 > That should be quite generous, as the worst case time for the start for > incoming migration, which is always paused so not doing much, is normally > way lower than a cold-start. >=20 > I mean, we're in an worker task and do not really care much if setup need= s > a bit longer. yeah, that sounds like a good idea :) also gives us future updates /=20 special case handling for setups that take longer 'for free', including=20 things like a possible manual override via the guest config.