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 B5F7261444 for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 14:45:47 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: 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?= References: <20220203124143.1931377-1-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> <20220203124143.1931377-17-f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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;