From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B544D1FF0AF
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:01:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 221C821624;
	Fri, 06 Nov 2026 14:01:30 +0100 (CET)
From: Kefu Chai <k.chai@proxmox.com>
To: m.koeppl@proxmox.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH e2e-tests 27/38] tests: ceph: verify guests on RBD storage
Date: Fri,  6 Nov 2026 21:01:19 +0800
Message-ID: <20261106130119.264924-1-k.chai@proxmox.com>
X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.3
In-Reply-To: <20261104190345.2573464-28-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
References: <20261104190345.2573464-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
 <20261104190345.2573464-28-m.koeppl@proxmox.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2
X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1793970085840
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
	AWL                     0.240 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From:
 address
	DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
	KAM_DMARC_STATUS         0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict
 Alignment (newer systems)
	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
Message-ID-Hash: FCKJTMSE2ZHV33Y74U5RO6W6NKRPODSJ
X-Message-ID-Hash: FCKJTMSE2ZHV33Y74U5RO6W6NKRPODSJ
X-MailFrom: k.chai@proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop;
 banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation;
 administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation;
 no-subject; digests; suspicious-header
CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Owner: <mailto:pve-devel-owner@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-join@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:pve-devel-leave@lists.proxmox.com>

Hi Michael,

> [snip]
> +        $first->start_guest('qemu', $testcase->{vmid});
> +
> +        my $mapped = $mapped_images->($first)->{ $testcase->{image} };
> +        if ($testcase->{krbd}) {
> +            ok($mapped, "VM disk is mapped through krbd on '$node'");
> +        } else {
> +            ok(!$mapped, 'VM disk is not mapped, as QEMU accesses it through librbd');
> +        }
> [snip]

Could we mirror the container test here: boot a small guest, write
a marker inside it, and check the marker after migration, for both
krbd settings?

That would give us the same basic data check for VMs and exercise
guest I/O through both QEMU storage paths.