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 81A5CC6E2 for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:49:41 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6F6F65ECA for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:49:11 +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 4A9665EBF for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:49:10 +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 215EF40AAB for ; Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:49:10 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <71b4db3a-0df4-123f-2635-c8706f551210@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2022 16:49:09 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20220406114657.452190-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <1649404843.ds1yioa8qv.astroid@nora.none> <2a67ca76-f10f-5c2f-44a7-9d9da0c36c78@proxmox.com> <60e67e63-5229-47ce-1bc2-bca0c87ce3d3@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <60e67e63-5229-47ce-1bc2-bca0c87ce3d3@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.560 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 -3.086 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] [PATCH v2 storage] rbd: alloc image: fix #3970 avoid ambiguous rbd path 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, 11 Apr 2022 14:49:41 -0000 On 4/11/22 14:17, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: [...] >> >> Some more (smaller) changes might be necessary, if the implementation we >> manage to upstream will be a bit different. But that should not be much of an >> issue AFAICT. > > We can always ship our downstream solution to be whatever we want and sync up > on major release, so not a real problem. > > FWIW, with storage getting the following patch the symlinks get created (may need > an trigger for reloading udev (or manually `udevadm control -R`). > > We'd only need to check to prioritize /deb/rbd-pve/$fsid/... paths first; > do you have time to give that a go? The final `fi` in the renamer script was missing from the diff. Once I fixed that, it seems to work fine. Situation with a local hyperconverged cluster and an external one: --------------------------------- root@cephtest1:/dev/rbd-pve# tree . ├── ce99d398-91ab-4667-b4f2-307ba0bec358 │   └── ecpool-metadata │   ├── vm-103-disk-0 -> ../../../rbd0 │   ├── vm-103-disk-0-part1 -> ../../../rbd0p1 │   ├── vm-103-disk-0-part2 -> ../../../rbd0p2 │   ├── vm-103-disk-0-part5 -> ../../../rbd0p5 │   ├── vm-103-disk-1 -> ../../../rbd1 │   └── vm-103-disk-2 -> ../../../rbd2 └── e78d9b15-d5a1-4660-a4a5-d2c1208119e9 └── rbd └── vm-103-disk-0 -> ../../../rbd3