From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 772159460C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:46:40 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5A74E207EA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:46:40 +0100 (CET)
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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:46:38 +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 5ABED45046
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:46:38 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <b2ff06be-a653-22bd-224e-5617e367d5d2@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 16:46:37 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:109.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/109.0
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20221128155509.142996-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20221128155509.142996-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.037 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [proxmox.com, plugin.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] plugin: file size info: use
fallback for actual size
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Jan 2023 15:46:40 -0000
Am 28/11/2022 um 16:55 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> The actual-size property is an optional property in the QAPI
> definition for ImageInfo. If it's not set, simply use the information
> from stat() as a fallback. This is essentially the same
> raw_get_allocated_file_size() in QEMU does anyways.
>
> Reported in the community forum:
> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/118443/post-513421
>
> Signed-off-by: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> Thanks to Mira for setting up a GlusterFS instance and discussing the
> issue with me!
>
> I'm not sure why QEMU fails here, didn't see much that could go wrong
> beside the fstat() call failing. But our stat() call in the beginning
> of file_size_info already succeeded at that point :/ The mysteries of
> QEMU+GlusterFS.
>
> Also, it's a bit strange to call qemu-img info regardless of whether
> the image is a VM image or not. E.g., this results in the format
> property for backups to always be raw, rather than the backup format.
> Should we change that (for 8.0)?
>
> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 1 +
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> index 8a41df1..7773ac3 100644
> --- a/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm
> @@ -899,6 +899,7 @@ sub file_size_info {
> }
>
> my ($size, $format, $used, $parent) = $info->@{qw(virtual-size format actual-size backing-filename)};
> + $used ||= $st->blocks * 512;
in general OK, but can we really be sure that blocks are always 512 bytes?
>
> ($size) = ($size =~ /^(\d+)$/) or die "size '$size' not an integer\n"; # untaint
> # coerce back from string