From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14C021FF0AA for ; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 10:33:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EBC16214CF; Tue, 06 Oct 2026 10:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2026 10:33:07 +0200 Message-Id: Subject: Re: [PATCH docs/manager/storage v12 0/6] fix #7339: lvmthick: add option to free storage for deleted VMs From: =?utf-8?q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= To: "Lukas Sichert" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.22.0 References: <20260811150534.137170-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260811150534.137170-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1791275587882 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.311 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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 Message-ID-Hash: SQPUXIKMTJV2TQGMLQODEASSHSR5X6SB X-Message-ID-Hash: SQPUXIKMTJV2TQGMLQODEASSHSR5X6SB X-MailFrom: m.koeppl@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Just for the record, the storage patches of this series seem to have been applied already. Just stumbled over this while attempting to test this version of the series as well. On Tue Aug 11, 2026 at 5:05 PM CEST, Lukas Sichert wrote: > Logical volumes (LV) in an LVM (thick) volume group (VG) are > thick-provisioned, but the underlying backing storage can be > thin-provisioned. In particular, this can be the case if the VG resides > on a LUN provided by a SAN via iSCSI/FC/SAS [1], where the LUN may be > thin-provisioned on the SAN side. > > In such setups, one usually wants that deleting an LV (e.g. VM disk) [snip]