From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 226211FF15C for ; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:53:27 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4BA0410B70; Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:54:21 +0100 (CET) From: Thomas Lamprecht To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, Friedrich Weber Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2025 12:52:58 +0100 Message-ID: <176312117745.3748993.11252664883803868210.b4-ty@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3 In-Reply-To: <20251021155034.143672-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> References: <20251021155034.143672-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763121231132 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.023 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 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] [PATCH manager] api2 tools: rrd data: prefer new-format keys over old-format keys 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On Tue, 21 Oct 2025 17:50:27 +0200, Friedrich Weber wrote: > This fixes an issue where on a fresh Proxmox VE 9 cluster, the status > of the first VM/container would not be updated in the resource tree > for the first 5 minutes after creation. For example, starting the > newly created guest after the first pvestatd status update would not > update the state to "running" for 5 minutes. > > The reason is that pvestatd, when broadcasting RRD data, checks for > existence of /var/lib/rrdcached/db/pve-vm-9.0/ to decide whether to > send RRD data with new-format (pve-vm-9.0/) or old-format (pve2.3-vm/) > keys. The directory does not exist on nodes of a fresh cluster without > guests, so pvestatd falls back to sending an old-format key. pmxcfs, > upon receiving the key, creates the directory, so on the next pvestatd > status update, pvestatd will send out new-format keys. But until the > entry with the old-format key expires (after 5 minutes), both the > new-format and the old-format key exist in the RRD data. Currently, if > both keys are present, get_rrd_key will return the old-format key, > meaning that any status updates with the new-format key are not > registered. In order to fix this, prefer the new-format key if it is > present. > > [...] As this is w.r.t. choosing what existing data one should use it definitively makes sense to prefer the new format, at least with recent changes to how we (do not) upgrade the old data anymore and start directly with the new format. Applied, thanks! [1/1] api2 tools: rrd data: prefer new-format keys over old-format keys commit: 0ffad1d59611d1bf26fe99dbdc9a89fb49006ea6 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel