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 1905474099 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:37:44 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1680213E45 for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:37:44 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8F7C413E2F for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:37:43 +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 6668D405AC for ; Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:37:43 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 8 Jul 2021 09:37:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20210707102250.5478-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20210707102250.5478-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1625729074.m9x7ql96rs.astroid@nora.none> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1625729074.m9x7ql96rs.astroid@nora.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.493 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 -0.001 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 manager 2/2] pve6to7: storage content: ignore misconfigured unreferenced volumes 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: Thu, 08 Jul 2021 07:37:44 -0000 On 08.07.21 09:29, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: > On July 7, 2021 12:22 pm, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> If the same local storage is configured twice with content type >> separation, migration in PVE 6 would lead to the volumes being >> duplicated. As that would happen for every migration, such an issue >> would likely be noticed already, and in PVE 7 such configuration is >> not problematic for migration anymore. Also, misconfigured >> unreferenced volumes are not an issue with respect to the upgrade >> itself, just drop the check. >=20 > but those checks also catch storages that are misconfigured for which n= o=20 > such inverse storage with opposite content type and otherwise identical= =20 > settings exists? we can't just drop them altogether? >=20 > we COULD skip them conditionally for storage pairs (same type, same=20 > 'path'/pool/pool+mons/.., one with images on with rootfs), but such=20 > setups are still wrong and not properly separated IMHO. and stuff like = > dir-storage on-top of other dir-like storage with volumes stored in the= =20 > same path are not really "detectable" in a reliable and cheap fashion=20 > and should really be fixed by the user (e.g., by moving the dir storage= =20 > into a non-confusable sub-dir of the backing storage). as long as the content types are non-overlapping it is separated though, a user in the forum had a GlusterFS entry used by QEMU directly and that GlusterFS mounted on the system for containers, both added as storage but= strictly separating content types. I.e., an OK setup where changing anything could actually lead to breakage= , but the warning as it was did not really reflect that. If that can be improved then OK, but as is it was just not worth for what I perceive as rather small in-practice risk of that change.