From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 BFCFC600AB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AD40B9425
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:03 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(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 8894B9411
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:02 +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 45177461E8
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:02 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <77fc57a6-3a83-56f1-4695-81f1eaf2aa82@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Feb 2021 14:21:00 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:86.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/86.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
References: <20210204125224.25059-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<20210204125224.25059-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210204125224.25059-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.028 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.182 Looks like a legit reply (A)
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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [qemuconfig.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 2/4] savevm: periodically print
progress
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, 05 Feb 2021 13:21:33 -0000
much thanks in general for following up on my request, this irked
me since almost ever.
a few nits inline.
On 04.02.21 13:52, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/QemuConfig.pm | 13 +++++++++++++
> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuConfig.pm b/PVE/QemuConfig.pm
> index 3f4605f..37db347 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuConfig.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuConfig.pm
> @@ -14,6 +14,7 @@ use PVE::QemuServer;
> use PVE::QemuServer::Machine;
> use PVE::Storage;
> use PVE::Tools;
> +use PVE::CLIFormatter;
>
> use base qw(PVE::AbstractConfig);
>
> @@ -280,14 +281,26 @@ sub __snapshot_create_vol_snapshots_hook {
> PVE::Storage::activate_volumes($storecfg, [$snap->{vmstate}]);
>
> mon_cmd($vmid, "savevm-start", statefile => $path);
> + print "saving VM state and RAM\n";
> + my $start = time();
The SaveVMInfo struct returned by 'query-savevm' would have a 'total-time' field,
why not use that?
> + my $state = sub {
over general helper name
> + my ($bytes) = @_;
> + my $b = PVE::CLIFormatter::render_bytes($bytes);
> + my $t = PVE::CLIFormatter::render_duration(time() - $start);
> + return "$b in $t";
could return a ($b, $t) tuple here, just an idea, this is totally fine to
with the current usage.
> + };
> for(;;) {
> my $stat = mon_cmd($vmid, "query-savevm");
> if (!$stat->{status}) {
> die "savevm not active\n";
> } elsif ($stat->{status} eq 'active') {
> sleep(1);
> + my $s = $state->($stat->{bytes});
> + print "progress: $s\n";
I'd drop the "progress", IMO just noise.
> next;
> } elsif ($stat->{status} eq 'completed') {
> + my $s = $state->($stat->{bytes});
> + print "saved $s\n";
I'd explicitly out put that we're done:
"completed, saved $s\n";
> last;
> } else {
> die "query-savevm returned status '$stat->{status}'\n";
>