From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A2EE81FF16B for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:13:15 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AEC831F4BE; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:13:21 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 12:13:17 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fiona Ebner , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= References: <20251120163446.179671-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <1750f651-02da-4dab-ac97-edd016fb2ae7@proxmox.com> <3b73cb50-9f26-42be-85a9-8ce2886407c8@proxmox.com> <2631ff50-b5b5-4642-a2cb-dc5be1fbbbfd@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <2631ff50-b5b5-4642-a2cb-dc5be1fbbbfd@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763723565674 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 qemu-server 1/1] create_vm: assume HA state 'started' when live-restoring guests 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 21.11.25 um 11:32 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 21.11.25 um 11:23 AM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> Am 21.11.25 um 11:15 schrieb Fiona Ebner: >>> Am 21.11.25 um 11:04 AM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >>>> We lock the config on restore, or? >>>> If so, couldn't we handle this in the HA stack and do not shutdown if a >>>> restore lock is present in the config? >>> >>> But that'd be more coupling? Further below in the endpoint we have (two >>> instances of): >> >> Making the HA actually aware of how the resources it manages work, so that >> it can make better decisions, is definitively not more coupling. > > Fair point. To also be fair, it is coupling, but this is warranted one (at least for the current design); not all coupling is inherently bad, it always should be rather explicit and not hidden though. >>>> if ($ha_managed) { >>>> print "Add as HA resource\n"; >>>> my $state = $start_after_create ? 'started' : 'stopped'; >>>> my $cmd = ['ha-manager', 'add', "vm:$vmid", '--state', $state]; >>>> eval { PVE::Tools::run_command($cmd); }; >>>> warn $@ if $@; >>>> } >>> >>> So we could just put $start_after_create || $live_restore there >> >> Does not solves the case for when restores over a existing VM that is a HA >> resource already, FWICT. > > The code block above still needs fixing regardless? Since it sets the > state for a newly added resource. Yes, I think so. One is for not stopping during restore and the other is for not stopping them after the restore, and live-restore already *does* imply start-after-create (well, restore here, but same same). _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel