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 261C91FF15C for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:07:03 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 81FF436349; Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:06:58 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <f540cf16-c138-4599-8cfa-f0253787f3bf@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 26 Mar 2025 13:06:55 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20250325151421.3182493-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <8c06736a-abaf-42d5-9c56-cca185d30aee@proxmox.com> <8af44d26-f1ea-4272-b94a-d6540d02249f@proxmox.com> <b94f52e3-c579-456a-9ed9-684ddb03fde0@proxmox.com> <0e35ad8d-96c9-4a08-9aed-439eecdc50cf@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <0e35ad8d-96c9-4a08-9aed-439eecdc50cf@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.040 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage/manager v3] allow upload & import of qcow2 in the web UI 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-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Am 26.03.25 um 12:57 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 3/26/25 12:41, Fiona Ebner wrote: >> Am 26.03.25 um 11:47 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> On 3/26/25 11:37, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>>> Am 25.03.25 um 16:14 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>>>> most of the building blocks are already there: >>>>> * we can have qcow2 files in an import storage >>>>> * we can import qcow2 files via the api from such a storage >>>>> >>>>> this series fills in the missing bits & pieces: >>>>> * allow uploading qcow2 files into an import storage via the webgui >>>>> * adding the possibility to select such a file when creating a vm/disk >>>>> >>>>> We could maybe also allow this for raw/vmdk if we want to, but IMHO >>>>> we can start out with qcow2 and add the others as necssary. >>>>> >>>>> (if wanted, I can of course also add the others in a next version >>>>> or as >>>>> a follow up) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, please! It would be nice to have all three at the same time. Or is >>>> there any specific reason why you limit it to qcow2? Otherwise, users >>>> will just ask why support for these is missing right away. >>> >>> No specific reason, it was just easier/quicker to implement one first. >>> When we also allow raw files, >>> should we also allow other extensions than '.raw'? not sure if there is >>> one that >>> is often used (since I think '.raw' is more a PVE thing) >>> >> >> Right, raw is actually a bit of a headache because of that :P >> >> We could either: >> >> 1) have a list of common extensions for raw: .raw/.img/etc >> >> 1b) also treat files without extension as raw? >> >> 2) have a list of known extensions that are not raw and treat everything >> else as raw, while logging an informational message >> >> I'd prefer 1), because we already require specific extensions for other >> uploads. >> >> And likely we want to rename after/during upload, so images that are raw >> for us always have a ".raw" extension? Otherwise, we need to be careful >> enough to enforce the very same rules when parsing the import volume >> name and thus mostly also have them set in stone for the future. The >> advantage of the latter would be for the use case where one wants to >> manually make accessible their already existing image folders without >> using the API. >> > > actually thinking of renaming, i don't think that's necessary to do in > the backend at all > since the client will provide a target filename, we can just rename it > in the ui > to '.raw' for the user? > > then we'd also not have to have a list of 'raw' formats on the backend > at all? Sounds good to me :) _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel