From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.weber@proxmox.com>
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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9710BB862E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:50:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7DF6CABAD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:50:53 +0100 (CET)
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 <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:50:52 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 355EA47F5F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:50:52 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <76ec99d7-3606-4803-b1fa-dd0adc46c3ec@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Mar 2024 10:50:51 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com>
References: <20240306140834.223729-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20240306140834.223729-1-h.duerr@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.078 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [qemu.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server v2 1/1] fix 1734: clone VM: if
deactivation fails demote error to warning
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Mar 2024 09:50:53 -0000
Tested-by: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com>
Can confirm the patch fixes the issue of parallel qmclones failing
occasionally due to a LVM deactivation error, and the extra \n in the
task log from v1 is gone.
One tiny comment inline:
On 06/03/2024 15:08, Hannes Duerr wrote:
> When a template with disks on LVM is cloned to another node, the volumes
> are first activated, then cloned and deactivated again after cloning.
>
> However, if clones of this template are now created in parallel to other
> nodes, it can happen that one of the tasks can no longer deactivate the
> logical volume because it is still in use. The reason for this is that
> we use a shared lock.
> Since the failed deactivation does not necessarily have consequences, we
> downgrade the error to a warning, which means that the clone tasks will
> continue to be completed successfully.
>
> Signed-off-by: Hannes Duerr <h.duerr@proxmox.com>
> ---
> changes since v1:
> - fix nits and spelling
>
> PVE/API2/Qemu.pm | 7 ++++++-
> 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> index 69c5896..1ff5abe 100644
> --- a/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> +++ b/PVE/API2/Qemu.pm
> @@ -48,6 +48,7 @@ use PVE::DataCenterConfig;
> use PVE::SSHInfo;
> use PVE::Replication;
> use PVE::StorageTunnel;
> +use PVE::RESTEnvironment qw(log_warn);
>
> BEGIN {
> if (!$ENV{PVE_GENERATING_DOCS}) {
> @@ -3820,7 +3821,11 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method({
>
> if ($target) {
> # always deactivate volumes - avoid lvm LVs to be active on several nodes
> - PVE::Storage::deactivate_volumes($storecfg, $vollist, $snapname) if !$running;
> + eval {
> + PVE::Storage::deactivate_volumes($storecfg, $vollist, $snapname) if !$running;
> + };
> + log_warn($@) if ($@);
I suppose the parentheses in the post-if condition `if ($@)` are not
strictly necessary, but since ` ... if ($@);` does appear a couple of
times in our existing code, so probably not a problem.
> +
> PVE::Storage::deactivate_volumes($storecfg, $newvollist);
>
> my $newconffile = PVE::QemuConfig->config_file($newid, $target);