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 2CBFD9EFB for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:01 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 281B22410C for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:01 +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 id 63B7E24101 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:00 +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 3F28642602 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:22:00 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <8e69575b-40fa-bc91-2276-0dcf483e84ca@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 10:21:54 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220421112659.74011-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220421112659.74011-12-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <29993f47-77f1-2701-e8d6-dd11a6b21a29@proxmox.com> <78d40de3-50fa-9f51-9542-b26f4eb7a6f9@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.011 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -1.857 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 manager 1/3] ui: restore: disallow empty storage selection if it wouldn't work 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, 27 Apr 2022 08:22:01 -0000 Am 27.04.22 um 09:05 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 25.04.22 09:28, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Am 23.04.22 um 11:38 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >>> On 21.04.22 13:26, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>>> Namely, if there is a storage in the backup configuration that's not >>>> available on the current node. >>> >>> Better than the status quo, but in the long run all the "force all volumes to a single storage" >>> on restore and also migrate isn't ideal for the case where one or more storages do not exist on >>> the target node. An per-volume override would be nicer, but may require some gui adaptions to >>> present that in a sensible way with good UX. >>> >> >> In the UI, it could simply be part of the disk grid (proposed in patch >> manager 3/3), only showing up for drives selected from the backup? > > exactly what I thought too. My first attempt using a widgetcolumn with a storage selector failed, as it would issue an API call for each disk...I'll try to come up with some way of sharing/fixing the store to make it work. In v3, I forgot to group the override settings in a fieldset, will do so in v4. > >> >> In the back-end for migration, we have a storage-storage map, but here >> we'd need a drive-storage map. It'd be possible to extend the 'storage' >> parameter for the create/restore API call to be such a map, but I wonder >> if going for a 'restore-drives' parameter being such a map (and >> replacing the proposed 'preserve-drives' parameter) would be better? > > hmm, possibly > >> >> The downside is, we'd have to choose between >> A) preserve disk and config >> B) preserve disk as unused >> for the drives that are not present in the backup. A) would be more >> convenient in the partial restore context, but B) is the current >> default. Thus we need to keep B) if 'restore-drives' is not specified at >> all for backwards-compatibility, but can choose A) if 'restore-drives' >> is specified. But doing so seems a little inconsistent regarding user >> expectation. > > would a more general src:dest map help, for example (just to give the very > rough direction meaning here): > > not present or `scsi1:backup` <- would be restored as in the backup (config) > `scsi1:store=foo` <- as in config put on another storage > `scsi1:preserve` <- preserve from existing installation being overwritten > > The actual left/right hand sides would need to get fleshed out to fit our > use cases best, but I sent a v3 yesterday with something similar.