From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 78E159EDA for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:05:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6A50B23712 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:05:31 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id CCE4623705 for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:05:30 +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 97C7942D5D for ; Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:05:30 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 09:05:29 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/100.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Fabian Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220421112659.74011-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20220421112659.74011-12-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <29993f47-77f1-2701-e8d6-dd11a6b21a29@proxmox.com> <78d40de3-50fa-9f51-9542-b26f4eb7a6f9@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <78d40de3-50fa-9f51-9542-b26f4eb7a6f9@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.957 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 -1.857 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 v2 manager 1/3] ui: restore: disallow empty storage selection if it wouldn't work X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Apr 2022 07:05:31 -0000 On 25.04.22 09:28, Fabian Ebner wrote: > Am 23.04.22 um 11:38 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> On 21.04.22 13:26, Fabian Ebner wrote: >>> Namely, if there is a storage in the backup configuration that's not >>> available on the current node. >> >> Better than the status quo, but in the long run all the "force all volumes to a single storage" >> on restore and also migrate isn't ideal for the case where one or more storages do not exist on >> the target node. An per-volume override would be nicer, but may require some gui adaptions to >> present that in a sensible way with good UX. >> > > In the UI, it could simply be part of the disk grid (proposed in patch > manager 3/3), only showing up for drives selected from the backup? exactly what I thought too. > > In the back-end for migration, we have a storage-storage map, but here > we'd need a drive-storage map. It'd be possible to extend the 'storage' > parameter for the create/restore API call to be such a map, but I wonder > if going for a 'restore-drives' parameter being such a map (and > replacing the proposed 'preserve-drives' parameter) would be better? hmm, possibly > > The downside is, we'd have to choose between > A) preserve disk and config > B) preserve disk as unused > for the drives that are not present in the backup. A) would be more > convenient in the partial restore context, but B) is the current > default. Thus we need to keep B) if 'restore-drives' is not specified at > all for backwards-compatibility, but can choose A) if 'restore-drives' > is specified. But doing so seems a little inconsistent regarding user > expectation. would a more general src:dest map help, for example (just to give the very rough direction meaning here): not present or `scsi1:backup` <- would be restored as in the backup (config) `scsi1:store=foo` <- as in config put on another storage `scsi1:preserve` <- preserve from existing installation being overwritten The actual left/right hand sides would need to get fleshed out to fit our use cases best, but