From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 42B4D1FF16B for ; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:24:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 601161E021; Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:24:30 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2025 11:24:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Fiona Ebner , Proxmox VE development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Michael_K=C3=B6ppl?= References: <20251120163446.179671-1-m.koeppl@proxmox.com> <1750f651-02da-4dab-ac97-edd016fb2ae7@proxmox.com> <3b73cb50-9f26-42be-85a9-8ce2886407c8@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <3b73cb50-9f26-42be-85a9-8ce2886407c8@proxmox.com> X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1763720635736 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.022 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] [PATCH qemu-server 1/1] create_vm: assume HA state 'started' when live-restoring guests 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 21.11.25 um 11:15 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 21.11.25 um 11:04 AM schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: >> We lock the config on restore, or? >> If so, couldn't we handle this in the HA stack and do not shutdown if a >> restore lock is present in the config? > > But that'd be more coupling? Further below in the endpoint we have (two > instances of): Making the HA actually aware of how the resources it manages work, so that it can make better decisions, is definitively not more coupling. > >> if ($ha_managed) { >> print "Add as HA resource\n"; >> my $state = $start_after_create ? 'started' : 'stopped'; >> my $cmd = ['ha-manager', 'add', "vm:$vmid", '--state', $state]; >> eval { PVE::Tools::run_command($cmd); }; >> warn $@ if $@; >> } > > So we could just put $start_after_create || $live_restore there Does not solves the case for when restores over a existing VM that is a HA resource already, FWICT. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel