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 2234F68F04 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:22:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1A6831D994 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:22:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 53B681D98A for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:22:30 +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 1B98F41D02 for ; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:22:30 +0100 (CET) To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Reiter References: <20210301094224.22203-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <03e08983-92d5-72c3-bce8-9f0ba98b3d18@proxmox.com> <59858abd-5032-2130-1aae-db734ecd8a50@proxmox.com> <909038762.124.1614593932855@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <2faca1b5-fa84-e5a2-5c20-25a3925fa385@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:22:29 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <909038762.124.1614593932855@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] fix #3324: clone disk: use larger blocksize for EFI disk when possible 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, 01 Mar 2021 10:22:31 -0000 Am 01.03.21 um 11:18 schrieb Dietmar Maurer: > >>>>> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm >>>>> index f401baf..e579cdf 100644 >>>>> --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm >>>>> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm >>>>> @@ -6991,7 +6991,15 @@ sub clone_disk { >>>>>           # that is given by the OVMF_VARS.fd >>>>>           my $src_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file}); >>>>>           my $dst_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $newvolid); >>>>> -        run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, >>>>> "bs=1", "count=$size", >>>>> + >>>>> +        # Ceph doesn't like too small blocksize, see bug #3324 >>>>> +        my $bs = 1; >>>>> +        while ($bs < $size && $bs < 1024 && $size % $bs == 0) { >>>>> +            $bs *= 2; >>>>> +        } > > now, $size % $bs != 0 > > I guess this is wrong... > No, because of the $bs < $size check first. If we enter the loop, $size was a multiple of $bs and at least twice $bs. I wrote it like this because it'd avoid an endless loop if for whatever reason $size is 0. >>>>> +        my $count = $size / $bs; >>>>> + >>>>> +        run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, >>>>> "bs=$bs", "count=$count", >>>>>               "if=$src_path", "of=$dst_path"]); >>>>>           } else { >>>>>           qemu_img_convert($drive->{file}, $newvolid, $size, >>>>> $snapname, $sparseinit); >>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> pve-devel mailing list >> pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com >> https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel