From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <f.ebner@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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ECDB7916C0 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:28:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C26CB187EF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:28:20 +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>; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:28:19 +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 82D7D4592B for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:28:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <80ea4eed-2a25-4fac-adf4-a7c83471604b@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:28:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240125144149.216064-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240125144149.216064-13-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240125144149.216064-13-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 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 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC qemu-server 12/13] backup: implement fleecing option 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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:28:51 -0000 Am 25.01.24 um 15:41 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Management for fleecing images is implemented here. If the fleecing > option is set, for each disk (except EFI disk and TPM state) a new raw > fleecing image is allocated on the configured fleecing storage (same > storage as original disk by default). The disk is attached to QEMU > with the 'size' parameter, because the block node in QEMU has to be > the exact same size and the newly allocated image might be bigger if > the storage has a coarser allocation or rounded up. After backup, the > disks are detached and removed from the storage. > > Partially inspired by the existing handling of the TPM state image > during backup. > > Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > > STILL OPEN (see also the TODOs): > * Naming for fleecing images and also filtering/prohibiting them > with other operations. Currently using -fleecing suffix but > those can conflict with user-created ones. With the current draft, there is another issue when the VM has A:vm-123-disk-0 and B:vm-123-disk-0, because the names for the fleecing images will clash.