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 ECCC663BCE for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:44:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DB47B2133B for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:43:49 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3E45121332 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:43:49 +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 0BD6344EC6 for ; Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:43:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 11:43:37 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Fabian Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220113100831.34113-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220113100831.34113-8-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1643200113.0ad0cpn1af.astroid@nora.none> <3dc0288b-9fad-669a-9076-3e011da6e575@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3dc0288b-9fad-669a-9076-3e011da6e575@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.15.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1643279965.hlbmvc1uq3.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.064 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 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 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] [RFC v10 qemu-server 6/7] api: support VM disk import 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: Thu, 27 Jan 2022 10:44:20 -0000 On January 27, 2022 9:21 am, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 26.01.22 um 13:42 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >>=20 >> that way we can skip deactivation altogether (it's only relevant for >> shared storages that require it for migration, and by locking the owning >> VM and having a requirement for it to be on the same node at import-time= , >> no migration can happen in parallel anyway..). or we could deactivate if >> an owning VM exists and is not running, like we do at the end of full >> clones. >=20 > Sounds good. We actually only deactivate at the end of full clone if the > clone was to a different target node. Since the new config moves to a > different node then, deactivating the cloned volumes is required of > course, but I /think/ deactivating the source volumes is actually > optional (why should it depend on whether there's a target or not?). yeah, that is a bit strange. the source can stay activated IMHO. of course the target for full_clone needs to be de-activated if the=20 clone is a cross-node operation, but that is never the case for=20 importing (if we require owning VMs of source volumes to be on the=20 current node), so we could also leave those activated or just do=20 whatever we do in the regular creation path ;)