From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 824C868EF2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:24:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 76C851DB74
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:23:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(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 F35C71DB67
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:23:55 +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 BF68541CF2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:23:55 +0100 (CET)
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20210301094224.22203-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <b9e87459-d22c-1175-80ea-c931480b964e@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 1 Mar 2021 11:23:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20210301094224.22203-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.000 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
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)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
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] fix #3324: clone disk: use
larger blocksize for EFI disk when possible
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: Mon, 01 Mar 2021 10:24:26 -0000
After a short off-list discussion with Thomas, we decided to first
assert that the size is a multiple of 1024 and then simply use bs=1024.
If a new architecture with a strange-sized VARS file comes along we have
to adapt it though.
Am 01.03.21 um 10:42 schrieb Fabian Ebner:
> Moving to Ceph is very slow when bs=1. Instead, use the biggest possible power
> of two <= 1024. At the moment our EFI image sizes are multiples of 1024, so
> just using 1024 wouldn't be a problem, but this feels more future-proof.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>
> I did not see an way for 'qemu-img dd' to use a larger blocksize while still
> specifying the exact total size if it is not a multiple of the blocksize.
>
> PVE/QemuServer.pm | 10 +++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> index f401baf..e579cdf 100644
> --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm
> @@ -6991,7 +6991,15 @@ sub clone_disk {
> # that is given by the OVMF_VARS.fd
> my $src_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $drive->{file});
> my $dst_path = PVE::Storage::path($storecfg, $newvolid);
> - run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, "bs=1", "count=$size",
> +
> + # Ceph doesn't like too small blocksize, see bug #3324
> + my $bs = 1;
> + while ($bs < $size && $bs < 1024 && $size % $bs == 0) {
> + $bs *= 2;
> + }
> + my $count = $size / $bs;
> +
> + run_command(['qemu-img', 'dd', '-n', '-O', $dst_format, "bs=$bs", "count=$count",
> "if=$src_path", "of=$dst_path"]);
> } else {
> qemu_img_convert($drive->{file}, $newvolid, $size, $snapname, $sparseinit);
>