From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B5331FF141 for ; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:18 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 290A62141C; Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:17 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2026 14:37:11 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH storage v7 2/4] fix #7339: lvm: add discard action for removed volumes From: Fiona Ebner To: Lukas Sichert , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260616101323.24981-1-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <20260616101323.24981-3-l.sichert@proxmox.com> <777e92d5-3d3e-4daf-8e2b-2061d931ef4e@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <777e92d5-3d3e-4daf-8e2b-2061d931ef4e@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782823019187 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment (newer systems) 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: E5MD2EGIIJ53X2QHLMI7YQEPMFJCFHB7 X-Message-ID-Hash: E5MD2EGIIJ53X2QHLMI7YQEPMFJCFHB7 X-MailFrom: f.ebner@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: Am 30.06.26 um 2:15 PM schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 16.06.26 um 12:13 PM schrieb Lukas Sichert: >> On LVM storages backed by thin-provisioned SAN LUNs, removing an LV does >> not release the allocated space on the backing storage. Using LVM's >> `issue_discards` can avoid that, but makes `lvremove` issue the discards >> while holding the cluster-wide storage lock, which can hit the lock >> timeout for large volumes. >> >> Add an `on-volume-remove` property with an initial `discard` action. The >> cleanup worker issues the discard for the renamed LV before the final >> remove, so the long-running operation happens outside the storage lock. >> When combined with `saferemove`, the worker zeroes and discards the LV >> range by range, avoiding allocation of the whole LV with zeroes on >> thin-provisioned backing storage. > > If a storage has > on-volume-remove discard=1 > saferemove 0 > then zero-out is still done. I would expect only discard to be done then. My bad. As Lukas pointed out off-list, this is actually the case. It's just done outside the $secure_delete_cmd helper.