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 D8A529A92E for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 11:58:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B9E3B26D85 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 11:57:48 +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 for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 11:57:47 +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 68F6B47F6E for ; Wed, 10 May 2023 11:57:47 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <751e4986-6e54-f830-6908-2957ef5e958b@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 10 May 2023 11:57:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.1 To: Fiona Ebner , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20230502131732.1875692-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230502131732.1875692-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <91ef008a-9b97-90b5-4f11-365d43ebd108@proxmox.com> <90009b0e-670f-d294-78b9-536eacb90e14@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.532 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 NICE_REPLY_A -3.251 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 qemu-server 1/2] migration: avoid migrating disk images multiple times 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: Wed, 10 May 2023 09:58:18 -0000 On 5/9/23 16:43, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 09.05.23 um 14:55 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> >> * Don't scan all storages and only look at disk images that are >> referenced in the config. With this, we should have removed most >> situations where aliases would happen, and a migration is less likely to >> fail, because a storage is not online. > > I do prefer this approach as it also fixes issues like "unavailable, but > enabled storage that's not even involved fails migration". And it's also > more intuitive. > > But if we really do that, we need to be careful: In particular, we need > to explicitly pick up volumes in the pending section (currently, that > does only happen via the implicit scanning). There might be similar > issues in other situations, but none that I'm aware of. Thanks for the hint. I'll look into it. What could be such a scenario? Adding a new disk or removing one with hot-plugging not working?