From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5F7261444
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:46:18 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9D9343243C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:45:48 +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) server-digest SHA256)
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 3835632431
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:45:47 +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 0FE4D44C41
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:45:47 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <e943f446-37f9-0a6b-739d-ad98d2284939@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:45:46 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/91.5.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com,
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
References: <20220203124143.1931377-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
<20220203124143.1931377-17-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20220203124143.1931377-17-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.137 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 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v4 qemu-server 09/11] migrate: add remote
migration handling
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, 04 Feb 2022 13:46:18 -0000
Am 03.02.22 um 13:41 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
> @@ -251,22 +311,30 @@ sub scan_local_volumes {
> next if @{$dl->{$storeid}} == 0;
>
> my $targetsid = PVE::QemuServer::map_id($self->{opts}->{storagemap}, $storeid);
> - # check if storage is available on target node
> - my $target_scfg = PVE::Storage::storage_check_enabled(
> - $storecfg,
> - $targetsid,
> - $self->{node},
> - );
> -
> - die "content type 'images' is not available on storage '$targetsid'\n"
> - if !$target_scfg->{content}->{images};
> + my $remote_bwlimit;
Nit: unused variable
> + my $bwlimit_sids = [$storeid];
> + if (!$self->{opts}->{remote}) {
> + # check if storage is available on target node
> + my $target_scfg = PVE::Storage::storage_check_enabled(
> + $storecfg,
> + $targetsid,
> + $self->{node},
> + );
> +
> + die "content type 'images' is not available on storage '$targetsid'\n"
> + if !$target_scfg->{content}->{images};
> +
> + push @$bwlimit_sids, $targetsid;
> + }
>
> my $bwlimit = PVE::Storage::get_bandwidth_limit(
> 'migration',
> - [$targetsid, $storeid],
> + $bwlimit_sids,
> $self->{opts}->{bwlimit},
> );
>
> + $bwlimit = $self->merge_bwlimits($bwlimit, [$targetsid]);
> +
>
----8<----
>
> +# merges local limit '$bwlimit' and a possible remote limit
> +sub merge_bwlimits {
> + my ($self, $bwlimit, $storages) = @_;
> +
Since both callers of this call PVE::Storage::get_bandwith_limit() right
before, it could be moved in here, and $bwlimit dropped from our parameters?
> + if ($self->{opts}->{remote}) {
> + # get remote bwlimit
> + my $bwlimit_opts = {
> + operation => 'migration',
> + storages => $storages,
> + bwlimit => $self->{opts}->{bwlimit},
I was confused for a bit here why it's not $bwlimit, but of course we
want to re-do the (admittedly edge-case heavy) calculation on the remote
side. Might be worth a comment, but no big deal.
> + };
> + my $remote_bwlimit = PVE::Tunnel::write_tunnel($self->{tunnel}, 10, 'bwlimit', $bwlimit_opts);
> + if ($remote_bwlimit && $remote_bwlimit->{bwlimit}) {
> + $remote_bwlimit = $remote_bwlimit->{bwlimit};
> +
> + $bwlimit = $remote_bwlimit
> + if (!$bwlimit || $bwlimit > $remote_bwlimit);
Style nit: unnecessary parentheses
> + }
> + }
> +
> + return $bwlimit;
> +}
> +
> 1;