From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136AC1FF0AB for ; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:56:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7806D2164F; Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:56:55 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <4b17067c-bedf-4a2a-b416-5ca4b0bb1a78@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 23 Sep 2026 17:56:50 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH many v5 0/7] add option to prevent suggesting previously used VMIDs To: =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260921155410.938337-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1790179010672 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.514 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: 3HK2LJMABC7Z7NA6S7JBNS7OCZW4QLBC X-Message-ID-Hash: 3HK2LJMABC7Z7NA6S7JBNS7OCZW4QLBC X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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 X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Am 23.09.26 um 4:10 PM schrieb Michael Köppl: > On Tue Sep 22, 2026 at 5:02 PM CEST, Fiona Ebner wrote: > > [snip] > >> 2. Recording every second ID can lead to a file larger than the 1 MiB >> pmxcfs limit and then every operation will fail regardless of whether >> the feature is turned on or not. >> >> 3. Remote migration uses destroy_{lxc_container,vm} directly if the >> 'delete' parameter is set. >> >> For the second point, an example is: >> [I] root@pve9a1 ~# expr $(seq 100 2 1000000 | wc --bytes) / 1024 / 1024 >> 3 >> This is unlikely to happen with regular operation of course, because we >> always suggest the lowest free one, but it can't be ruled out. Not >> entirely sure what to do about it, but it would be good if we can avoid >> the issue. Maybe start dropping gaps and merging anyways if we get close >> to the limit? At the very least, we might consider making the failure >> non-critical if the feature is turned off. > > Pondered a bit on this and my suggested approach would be to have 2 > thresholds at 512KiB and 768KiB, where write_id_list would warn for the > "soft" threshold and start closing gaps at the "hard" threshold? That > would give users fair warning to follow the suggested unique guest IDs > and would potentially resolve the problem over time if ranges are > merged as a result of it. What do you think? > > I'd make it non-critical if 'unique' is turned off in any case. Sounds good to me :)