From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@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 A4B5A8AA27
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:28:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AFE7188DE
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:28:14 +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>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:28:14 +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 D415D43449
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:28:13 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <c92dc497-65b3-6564-a843-3d4c8232c556@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 11:28:13 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.1.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20220715115808.1385388-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<20220715115808.1385388-3-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<1660736115.7grkvr18dc.astroid@nora.none>
<ff083011-f422-1d93-d9d5-f667300e03e5@proxmox.com>
<1660896759.rnpqx2mr05.astroid@nora.none>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <1660896759.rnpqx2mr05.astroid@nora.none>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.014 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
T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 -
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [lvm.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage v2 2/3] disks: die if storage name
is already in use
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: Fri, 19 Aug 2022 09:28:14 -0000
On 8/19/22 10:20, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On August 18, 2022 5:22 pm, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Disks/LVM.pm b/PVE/API2/Disks/LVM.pm
>>>> index 6e4331a..a27afe2 100644
>>>> --- a/PVE/API2/Disks/LVM.pm
>>>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Disks/LVM.pm
>>>> @@ -152,6 +152,9 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>>>> PVE::Diskmanage::assert_disk_unused($dev);
>>>> PVE::Storage::assert_sid_unused($name) if $param->{add_storage};
>>>>
>>>> + die "volume group with name '${name}' already exists\n"
>>>> + if PVE::Storage::LVMPlugin::lvm_vgs()->{$name};
>>>
>>> probably better off inside the worker, since `vgs` might take a while
>>> (although we also use it in the index API call in this module..)
>>
>> From a GUI perspective: putting it in a worker would result in the user to hit
>> okay and then will see the failed task right? Keeping it as is will result in an
>> error popping up when clicking ok/create and the user can edit the name instead
>> of starting all over again. Though, if `vgs` really needs a bit, that error
>> popping up could take a moment or two.
>
> yes, putting it in the worker means no early-failure. but not putting it
> in the worker potentially means this API endpoint cannot be called on
> systems with busy LVM at all (30s timeout for API requests!). so
> early-failure checks should almost always only do "logical" things that
> are cheap (like reading a conf file and checking invariants), and
> nothing that can reasonably block for some time (like storage
> operations, starting guests, ..). I know we are not 100% consistent
> there (the worst offender is probably the storage content API endpoint
> ;)), but we should try to not introduce more problems of that fashion
> but rather work on removing the existing ones.
good point. I'll put the check inside the worker.