From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E9561FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:48:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8BE5935D0B; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:48:28 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <32f5c310-061a-4f6d-b856-6b3690442885@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 12:47:54 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250325151421.3182493-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <8c06736a-abaf-42d5-9c56-cca185d30aee@proxmox.com> <8af44d26-f1ea-4272-b94a-d6540d02249f@proxmox.com> <b94f52e3-c579-456a-9ed9-684ddb03fde0@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <b94f52e3-c579-456a-9ed9-684ddb03fde0@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.022 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 storage/manager v3] allow upload & import of qcow2 in the web UI 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 3/26/25 12:41, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 26.03.25 um 11:47 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >> On 3/26/25 11:37, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> Am 25.03.25 um 16:14 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>>> most of the building blocks are already there: >>>> * we can have qcow2 files in an import storage >>>> * we can import qcow2 files via the api from such a storage >>>> >>>> this series fills in the missing bits & pieces: >>>> * allow uploading qcow2 files into an import storage via the webgui >>>> * adding the possibility to select such a file when creating a vm/disk >>>> >>>> We could maybe also allow this for raw/vmdk if we want to, but IMHO >>>> we can start out with qcow2 and add the others as necssary. >>>> >>>> (if wanted, I can of course also add the others in a next version or as >>>> a follow up) >>> >>> >>> Yes, please! It would be nice to have all three at the same time. Or is >>> there any specific reason why you limit it to qcow2? Otherwise, users >>> will just ask why support for these is missing right away. >> >> No specific reason, it was just easier/quicker to implement one first. >> When we also allow raw files, >> should we also allow other extensions than '.raw'? not sure if there is >> one that >> is often used (since I think '.raw' is more a PVE thing) >> > > Right, raw is actually a bit of a headache because of that :P > > We could either: > > 1) have a list of common extensions for raw: .raw/.img/etc > > 1b) also treat files without extension as raw? > > 2) have a list of known extensions that are not raw and treat everything > else as raw, while logging an informational message > > I'd prefer 1), because we already require specific extensions for other > uploads. > > And likely we want to rename after/during upload, so images that are raw > for us always have a ".raw" extension? Otherwise, we need to be careful > enough to enforce the very same rules when parsing the import volume > name and thus mostly also have them set in stone for the future. The > advantage of the latter would be for the use case where one wants to > manually make accessible their already existing image folders without > using the API. > I'd also use a list (e.g. for now '.raw', '.img') renaming is a good idea, but how should we do that? e.g. foo.img -> foo.img.raw ? because if we'd do foo.img -> foo.raw i think it's more likely to get a collision than when we keep the .img in the name what do you think? Side note (can be done later; or not) do we want to support compressed files? (gz, xz, etc.?) just noticed that e.g. the home assistant disk image is a qcow2.xz file _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel