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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AED1F916CB for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:41:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 907D218B46 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:41:08 +0100 (CET) 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 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:41:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 51168492F3 for ; Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:41:07 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 16:41:06 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240125144149.216064-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240125144149.216064-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240125144149.216064-10-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.074 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 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] [RFC guest-common 09/13] vzdump: schema: add fleecing property string 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: Mon, 29 Jan 2024 15:41:38 -0000 Am 25.01.24 um 15:41 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > + storage => get_standard_option('pve-storage-id', { > + description => "Use this storage to storage fleecing images. Default is to use the same " > + ."storage as the VM disk itself.", > + optional => 1, > + }), > +}); > + LVM and non-sparse ZFS need enough space for a copy for the full disk up-front, so are not suitable as fleecing storages in many cases. ISCSI doesn't allow disk allocation. Should such storages be outright forbidden as fleecing storages or should it just be documented? Should the setting rather be VM-specific than backup job-specific? These issues mostly defeat the purpose of the default here. IIRC older version of NFS lack the ability to discard. While not quite as bad as the above, it's still far from ideal. Might also be worth trying to detect? Will add something to the docs in any case.