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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 787916C274 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:12:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 65BF2DA48 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:12:13 +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 A4153DA3A for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:12:12 +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 6DB3746163 for ; Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:12:12 +0100 (CET) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20201014113628.14286-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <6a3087eb-4fe3-c282-99a5-c2b697fdb72b@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner Message-ID: <9bcc59d3-c457-c1a0-a17c-4b18b668417c@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 11:12:11 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <6a3087eb-4fe3-c282-99a5-c2b697fdb72b@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 -0.001 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. [replication.pm, replicationconfig.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES] remove replicated volumes on guest purge 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: Fri, 29 Jan 2021 10:12:13 -0000 Am 28.01.21 um 17:20 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 14.10.20 13:36, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Introduces two helper functions in Replication.pm and ReplicationConfig.pm >> so that the guests can do the removal easily. >> >> destroy_vm contains a check whether the guest is still in use by a >> linked clone (in the LXC case triggered by the storage backend at vdisk_free), >> so that needs to happen first. >> That check could be factored out and removing replicated volumes moved >> to before destroy_vm, but I feel like it's cleaner to first destroy the >> VM and do all related cleanups later (as it is now). >> >> The problem is that the guest config does not contain any volumes >> after destroy_vm, and run_full_removal would do nothing, because >> on removal, run_replication currently only considers storages that >> show up in the config and not those from the replication job state. >> >> Therefore, this depends on the following patch to be applied first: >> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-October/045386.html >> >> Dependency bumps: qemu-server,pve-container -> pve-guest-common >> are needed for patches #2 and #3 >> and I think the reverse bumps are needed for patch #4 >> > > Besides that, is this still relevant? If so, it may need some rebasing, > at least guest-common does. > If the decision that we want to remove replicated volumes on purge hasn't changed, then yes, it's still relevant. But it might be a good idea to introduce this change close(r) to the next release, and mention it in the "known issues", so fewer people are surprised by it. In any case, this depends on another patch (as mentioned above), so you probably want to take a look at that series first (it still applies for me): https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-October/045388.html The second patch is the important one.