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 D590B6CA6A for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C708E2D214 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 614662D207 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:29 +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 296AB45987 for ; Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:29 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 18:57:28 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:88.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/88.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Stefan Reiter References: <20210330155952.16389-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <20210330155952.16389-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210330155952.16389-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.044 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address 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) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server 2/2] increase timeout for QMP block_resize 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: Tue, 30 Mar 2021 16:57:29 -0000 On 30.03.21 17:59, Stefan Reiter wrote: > In testing this usually completes almost immediately, but in theory this > is a storage/IO operation and as such can take a bit to finish. It's > certainly not unthinkable that it might take longer than the default *3 > seconds* we've given it so far. Make it a minute. > > Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter > --- > > Optional for the fix, but seems like a good idea. > > PVE/QemuServer.pm | 9 +++++++-- > 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > index 1c0b5c2..f9379f6 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > @@ -4291,8 +4291,13 @@ sub qemu_block_resize { > my $padding = (1024 - $size % 1024) % 1024; > $size = $size + $padding; > > - mon_cmd($vmid, "block_resize", device => $deviceid, size => int($size)); > - > + mon_cmd( > + $vmid, > + "block_resize", > + device => $deviceid, > + size => int($size), > + timeout => 60, > + ); > } > > sub qemu_volume_snapshot { >