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 39C8F9A7A9 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:43:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 11ED9206D7 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:43:25 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:43:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C085B47CCE for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 9 May 2023 16:43:23 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <ba17438f-e379-f1ae-c7c4-ea905d566dd6@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 9 May 2023 16:43:23 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.10.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>, pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> References: <20230502131732.1875692-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <20230502131732.1875692-2-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> <91ef008a-9b97-90b5-4f11-365d43ebd108@proxmox.com> <90009b0e-670f-d294-78b9-536eacb90e14@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <90009b0e-670f-d294-78b9-536eacb90e14@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.854 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 NICE_REPLY_A -1.802 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 1/2] migration: avoid migrating disk images multiple times 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: Tue, 09 May 2023 14:43:55 -0000 Am 09.05.23 um 14:55 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: > > * Don't scan all storages and only look at disk images that are > referenced in the config. With this, we should have removed most > situations where aliases would happen, and a migration is less likely to > fail, because a storage is not online. I do prefer this approach as it also fixes issues like "unavailable, but enabled storage that's not even involved fails migration". And it's also more intuitive. But if we really do that, we need to be careful: In particular, we need to explicitly pick up volumes in the pending section (currently, that does only happen via the implicit scanning). There might be similar issues in other situations, but none that I'm aware of.