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 8170C8A918
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:22:55 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72A5E4951
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:22:25 +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>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:22:24 +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 66AE243E7C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:22:24 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ba299e48-3250-a948-c6d7-6e1a01e1087e@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2022 13:22:23 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.11.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220613102959.36556-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220613102959.36556-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.041 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES v2 manager/guest-common] replication:
 improve removal of stale snapshots/volumes
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, 27 Jul 2022 11:22:55 -0000

Am 13.06.22 um 12:29 schrieb Fabian Ebner:
> In certain scenarios, see manager 2/2 and guest-common 3/4, replicated
> volumes could end up orphaned. This series attempts to fix those, as
> well as making removal of stale replication snaphsots a bit more
> robust. Also includes some slight documentation improvements regarding
> prepare().
> 

Ping

> v1 can be found here (but there was no discussion):
> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2020-October/045388.html
> 
> Changes from v1:
>     * Adapt to changed behavior of prepare(), so we still only catch
>       volumes that had replication snapshots belonging to the job.
>     * Drop simplification that would only rely on replication state
>       to get storages for full removal.
>     * Add safe-guard to only remove other replication snaphsots if the
>       last_sync snapshot is present.
> 
>