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 [212.224.123.68])
by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 514641FF195
for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:45 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 57AB31B762;
Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <63bfad6f-daa8-45ed-ae90-626dfe2480d2@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Mar 2025 14:23:05 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20250213131716.3062383-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20250213131716.3062383-16-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<0a1e25c0-c80a-4f42-a1b5-8d1420157d3c@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <0a1e25c0-c80a-4f42-a1b5-8d1420157d3c@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.041 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
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 manager v6 2/5] bulk migrate: improve
precondition checks
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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Am 07.03.25 um 14:19 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> Am 13.02.25 um 14:17 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
>> this now takes into account the 'not_allowed_nodes' hash we get from the
>> api call. With that, we can now limit the 'local_resources' check for
>> online vms only, as for offline guests, the 'unavailable-resources' hash
>> already includes mapped devices that don't exist on the target node.
>>
>> This now also includes unavailable storages on target nodes.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> changes in v6:
>> * added missing colon in log output
>> PVE/API2/Nodes.pm | 14 +++++++++++++-
>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm
>> index 9cdf19db..f504e1b1 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Nodes.pm
>> @@ -2331,11 +2331,23 @@ my $create_migrate_worker = sub {
>> $invalidConditions .= join(', ', map { $_->{volid} } @{$preconditions->{local_disks}});
>> }
>>
>> - if (@{$preconditions->{local_resources}}) {
>> + if ($online && scalar($preconditions->{local_resources}->@*)) {
>
> Hmm, what about non-usb/pci local devices that are not covered by the
> 'unavailable-resources' below? I.e. ivshmem/serial/parallel. You break
> the check for offline migration against those.
And actually also the not-mapped USB/PCI devices or?
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel