public inbox for pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
	Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH/RFC storage] prune backups: activate storage
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 10:17:45 +0200	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <d11e9b8c-6073-5ddb-9b03-f1c3c61ea2d4@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210416085127.17803-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>

On 16.04.21 10:51, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> which also checks whether the storage is even enabled. VZDump jobs already
> activate the storage, but more direct calls via API/CLI didn't do so yet.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 
> Or should the call rather be made in the API endpoints?
> 
> For functions like volume_resize, the callers in qemu-server/pve-container do
> the activation via activate_volumes, while for vdisk_* functions the activation
> happens directly in the functions.

both can be OK as of now, this here seems a bit more convenient for the specific case,
we may want to stream line that a bit sometimes, but should be evaluated if there's
any gain from that (and be it only to have a nicer architecture to use), or at least
define some rough set of rules about when to do use what.

> 
> The snapshot-related functions are also currently missing the activation/enabled
> check! Should the callers in guest-common do an activate_volumes call, or should
> we do an activate_storage in the functions themselves?
> 
> The first appraoch has the advantage of being more efficient (one activation
> call for the whole operation) and also more precise (if volume activation itself
> is actually needed), while the second one ensures that we do not forget to make
> the calls.

here the activate_volumes in guest-common seems slightly more sensible for me, mostly
due the single call for multiple volumes and IIRC we handle specific sets of volumes
more often that way, compared to the prune above, which does not yet has a specific
set of volumes to operate one, it always goes on the whole storage (so IMO fits slightly
better in the pve-storage part)

> 
>  PVE/Storage.pm | 2 ++
>  1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
> 
>

applied, thanks!




      parent reply	other threads:[~2021-06-15  8:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-04-16  8:51 [pve-devel] " Fabian Ebner
2021-06-14  6:29 ` Fabian Ebner
2021-06-15  8:17 ` Thomas Lamprecht [this message]

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=d11e9b8c-6073-5ddb-9b03-f1c3c61ea2d4@proxmox.com \
    --to=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
    --cc=f.ebner@proxmox.com \
    --cc=pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Service provided by Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH | Privacy | Legal