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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EB05160FBC for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:38 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E8F9429D1F for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:38 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id BC7DA29D12 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:37 +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 96951457B8 for ; Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:37 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2022 13:39:36 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.4.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20220114115521.43773-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <38476974-2ebb-e0e1-af58-600a8777e34a@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <38476974-2ebb-e0e1-af58-600a8777e34a@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.136 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH container] fix #3424: vzdump: cleanup: wait for active replication 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, 14 Jan 2022 12:39:39 -0000 Am 14.01.22 um 13:21 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 14.01.22 12:55, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> As replication and backup can happen at the same time, the vzdump >> snapshot might be actively used by replication when backup tries >> to cleanup, resulting in a not (or only partially) removed snapshot >> and locked (snapshot-delete) container. >> >> Wait up to 10 minutes for any ongoing replication. If replication >> doesn't finish in time, the fact that there is no attempt to remove >> the snapshot means that there's no risk for the container to end up in >> a locked state. And the beginning of the next backup will force remove >> the left-over snapshot, which will very likely succeed even at the >> storage layer, because the replication really should be done by then >> (subsequent replications shouldn't matter as they don't need to >> re-transfer the vzdump snapshot). >> >> Suggested-by: Fabian Grünbichler >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner >> --- >> >> VM backups are not affected by this, because they don't use >> storage/config snapshots, but use pve-qemu's block layer. >> >> Decided to go for this approach rather than replication waiting on >> backup, because "full backup can take much longer than replication >> usually does", and even if we time out, we can just skip the removal >> for now and have the next backup do it. >> >> src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm | 11 +++++++++-- >> 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm b/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm >> index b7f7463..10edae9 100644 >> --- a/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm >> +++ b/src/PVE/VZDump/LXC.pm >> @@ -8,6 +8,7 @@ use File::Path; >> use POSIX qw(strftime); >> >> use PVE::Cluster qw(cfs_read_file); >> +use PVE::GuestHelpers; >> use PVE::INotify; >> use PVE::LXC::Config; >> use PVE::LXC; >> @@ -476,8 +477,14 @@ sub cleanup { >> } >> >> if ($task->{cleanup}->{remove_snapshot}) { >> - $self->loginfo("cleanup temporary 'vzdump' snapshot"); >> - PVE::LXC::Config->snapshot_delete($vmid, 'vzdump', 0); >> + $self->loginfo("checking/waiting for replication.."); > > do we know if replication is setup at this stage? as I'd like to avoid > logging that if that's not the case to avoid user confusion. > No, but I can add a check for it in v2. >> + eval { >> + PVE::GuestHelpers::guest_migration_lock($vmid, 600, sub { >> + $self->loginfo("cleanup temporary 'vzdump' snapshot"); >> + PVE::LXC::Config->snapshot_delete($vmid, 'vzdump', 0); >> + }); >> + }; >> + die "snapshot 'vzdump' was not (fully) removed - $@" if $@; >> } >> } >> >