From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 786261FF15C
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:21:44 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 67F971F434;
	Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:21:40 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <eb80f82a-3f73-4f1f-9294-b0ace2034357@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 22 Jan 2025 14:21:06 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20240916163839.236908-1-d.kral@proxmox.com>
 <20240916163839.236908-10-d.kral@proxmox.com>
 <ce8fdfc2-f2df-4544-bebc-a2596a976750@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
From: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <ce8fdfc2-f2df-4544-bebc-a2596a976750@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.011 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
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to
 Validity was blocked. See
 https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more
 information.
 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] [RFC qemu-server 9/9] restore_vm: improve checks if
 storage supports vm images
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 11/29/24 15:23, Fiona Ebner wrote:
> Am 16.09.24 um 18:38 schrieb Daniel Kral:
>> Improves checks if the underlying storage, where VMs are restored to,
>> support the content type 'images'. This has been already the case for
>> backup restores, but is refactored to use `check_storage_alloc` and
>> `check_volume_alloc`.
>>
>> Adds a check right before allocating a snapshot statefile and a
>> fleecing VM disk image for backups for consistency with the storage
>> content type system.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Daniel Kral <d.kral@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> I am not sure about the changes to the statefile and fleecing images
>> allocation as I've done them for consistency as well, but could cause
>> sudden failures, especially if the logic in
>> `PVE::QemuServer::find_vmstate_storage` could default to the hardcoded
>> `local` storage, which fails on system where said storage does not
>> support vm images (which is the default when installing PVE). Also the
>> fleecing disk image storage is specified when starting the backup job
>> with the `storeid` parameter in the PVE::VZDump::Plugin, where I'm not
>> totally sure yet how it is used across the repositories.
>>
> 
> The part about the vmstate images should be part of the commit message,
> but is also the reason we can't go for it right now. I do think the
> fallback to 'local' can trigger for a VM without disks. We can add a
> comment there to fix it up for Proxmox VE 9.0 (i.e. don't default to
> local storage anymore, but require an explicit vmstate storage for such
> VMs) where we can do such breaking changes.

Thanks for the clarification, I'll take another look at this and add a 
comment there. I might append a for-9.0 RFC patch if it doesn't change 
too much and could be easily rebased for the 9.0 release.


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel