From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> 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 802627062A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:45:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 76EA9490F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:45:26 +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 id 059DD4906 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:45:26 +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 D376242E97 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:45:25 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <321ce789-67c3-53ab-4288-db297e9f6d15@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2022 08:45:25 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/101.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20220524114116.2543812-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <1654180326.vcply64b2j.astroid@nora.none> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <1654180326.vcply64b2j.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.296 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 -2.575 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 PATCH guest-common 1/2] ReplicationState: purge state from non local vms X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Jun 2022 06:45:26 -0000 Am 02/06/2022 um 16:33 schrieb Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler: >> Replicate vm 100 from node A to node B and C, and activate HA. When no= de >> A dies, it will be relocated to e.g. node B and start replicate from >> there. If node B now had an old state lying around for it's sync to no= de >> C, it might delete the common base snapshots of B and C and cannot syn= c >> again. >> >> Deleting the state for all non local guests fixes that issue, since it= >> always starts fresh, and the potentially existing old state cannot be >> valid anyway since we just relocated the vm here (from a dead node). >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> > the logic seems sound, the state *is* invalid/outdated once the guest=20 > has been stolen.. >=20 > Reviewed-by: Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> >=20 Thanks! @Dominik, can you please send a v2 with Fabian's R-b and the nit = from patch 1/2 addressed? thanks!