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 4AB6C7A4EB for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:54:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3D2032499B for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:54:06 +0200 (CEST) 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 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:54:05 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9BBCA40EA5 for ; Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:54:05 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <24f43fb9-e853-0da6-e932-15ffecaa43d8@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2022 10:54:04 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220506101114.45522-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <7df6a3f1e9dc29284858b1015c4951c78460fd56.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> From: Mira Limbeck In-Reply-To: <7df6a3f1e9dc29284858b1015c4951c78460fd56.camel@groupe-cyllene.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.326 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server] api: create disks: avoid adding secondary cloud-init drives 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, 04 Jul 2022 08:54:06 -0000 On 5/16/22 10:32, DERUMIER, Alexandre wrote: >> --- >> >> Are there any scenarios where having multiple cloud-init drives is >> useful? > I don't remember exactly how cloud-init daemon is mounting drives, > but I'm pretty sure that with multiple cloud-init drives, > only 1 will be mounted and read. > > So,I'm 100% ok with limiting cloud-init to only 1 drive. > Yes, only one will be mounted. We had a support case with exactly that issue, one cloud-init disk attached to the VM, and host CD-Rom passthrough with another one. This lead to strange behavior because the wrong one was used by cloud-init.