From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F25461FF176 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:13:26 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4F523B6D0; Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:13:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <8528719f-58fd-4346-965d-5351c165f623@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2025 14:12:50 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240111150332.733635-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> <c447ba98-649a-40cd-809e-4e120faa1b72@proxmox.com> <80c410ca-3615-45cc-9801-f1e2d14cab78@proxmox.com> <265ef5c0-601a-41fc-81e8-ca7f908094b0@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Friedrich Weber <f.weber@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <265ef5c0-601a-41fc-81e8-ca7f908094b0@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.002 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 0/2] fix #4997: lvm: avoid autoactivating (new) LVs after boot 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> Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 01/02/2024 09:26, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 31.01.24 um 16:07 schrieb Friedrich Weber: >> Thanks for the review! >> >> On 26/01/2024 12:14, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>> Some points to discuss: >>>> >>>> * Fabian and I discussed whether it may be better to pass `-K` and set the >>>> "activation skip" flag only for LVs on a *shared* LVM storage. But this may >>>> cause issues for users that incorrectly mark an LVM storage as shared, create a >>>> bunch of LVs (with "activation skip" flag), then unset the "shared" flag, and >>>> won't be able to activate LVs afterwards (`lvchange -ay` without `-K` on an LV >>>> with "activation skip" is a noop). What do you think? >>>> >>> >>> Is there a way to prevent auto-activation on boot for LVs on a shared >>> (PVE-managed) LVM storage? Also a breaking change, because users might >>> have other LVs on the same storage, but would avoid the need for the >>> flag. Not against the current approach, just wondering. >> >> One can also disable autoactivation for a whole VG (i.e., all LVs of >> that VG): >> >> vgchange --setautoactivation n VG >> >> At least in my tests, after setting this no LV in that VG is active >> after boot, so this might also solve the problem. I suppose setting this >> automatically for existing VGs would be too dangerous (as users might >> have other LVs in that VGs). But our LVM storage plugin *could* set this >> when creating a new shared VG [1]? >> >> Not sure which option is better, though. >> > > Do you still need the -K flag to activate volumes in such a VG? If yes, > nothing is gained compared to the more fine-grained "setting it on > individual LVs". If no, we could save that. OTOH, users might want to > use existing shared VGs and then they would need to apply this setting > themselves. Just looked into this again: No, if I set `--setautoactivation n` for a VG, I don't need to pass -K to activate LVs within that VG. I think the `--setautoactivation n` flag for VGs/LVs only affects autoactivation (e.g. `vgchange -aay`, as done by udev, or `lvchange -aay`), not manual activation (e.g. `vgchange -ay`/`lvchange -ay`). > >>> Guardrails against issues caused by misconfiguration always warrant a >>> cost-benefits analysis. What is the cost for also setting the flag for >>> LVs on non-shared LVM storages? Or logic needs to be correct either way ;) >> >> AFAICT, setting this LV flag on non-shared LVM storages doesn't have >> negative side-effects. I don't think we rely on autoactivation anywhere. >> We'd need to take care of passing `-K` for all our `lvchange -ay` calls, >> but AFAICT, `lvchange` calls are only done in the LVM/LvmThin plugins in >> pve-storage. >> > > We need to have -K for activations, no matter if we only set the > activationskip flag for shared or all. That's not an additional cost. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel