From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6A7AC1FF15E
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:35:56 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 31A0416AC4;
	Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:36:23 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <b8a2a94c-25b6-47e6-bfcf-58e4ee35d1fb@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2025 09:35:40 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20250612140253.106555-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20250612140253.106555-16-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <409e12ad0b53d1b51c30717e6b9df3d370112df4.camel@groupe-cyllene.com>
 <mailman.422.1750140296.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <mailman.422.1750140296.395.pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.031 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 15/22] vm start/commandline:
 activate volumes before config_to_command()
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 17.06.25 um 08:04 schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel:
>>> With '-blockdev', it is necessary to activate the volumes to
>>> generate
>>> the command line, because it can be necessary to check whether the
>>> volume is a block device or a regular file.
> 
>>> I was thinking about that, but do we have storage with
>>> activate_volume
>>> need to be done for a regular file ?
> 
>>> for lvm plugin for example, we could return always
>>> driver=>host_device.
> 
>>> activate_volume is always done in specific plugin, so the plugin
>>> should
>>> be able to tell if it's a block or file storage
> 
>>> only custom path passthrough in vm configuration need to be checked
>>> if
>>> it's a file or device, but we don't have activate_volume anyway
> 
> 
> But for external snapshot, we need to check the backing file chain
> inside lvm qcow2 volumes, so maybe it's still needed....
> 
> we could use the vm config, but I'm not sure that we can trust it
> safely, in case of snapshot error,  or if an external backup tool like
> veeam do snapshot,
> and if we add snapshot replication like zfs where snapshots are not in
> th vm config

Discussed this yesterday with Fabian off-list a bit more, and we decided
to go with the activate_volumes approach. It's nearly there already,
just need to not deactivate after showcmd.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel