Re: [pve-devel] Consistency in volume deletion in process of concurrent VM deletion

[Andrei Perepiolkin via pve-devel <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 9512 bytes --]

From: Andrei Perepiolkin <andrei.perepiolkin@open-e.com>
To: "Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>, "Proxmox VE development discussion" <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] Consistency in volume deletion in process of concurrent VM deletion
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 2025 10:38:45 -0400
Message-ID: <e14b6374-9460-4655-8bd5-55bd90245919@open-e.com>

Hi Fabian,


I can try to prototype some proof-of-concept solution for 'lock 
granularity'.
Once it is done, the issue of ssh session termination should become clear.

Im new to mail-based contribution and Proxmox code itself.
So I will probably have questions on various topics.

Should I send this questions via email, as messages in bugzila or via 
other tool?


Best regards,

Andrei Perepiolkin


On 10/22/25 05:49, Fabian Grünbichler wrote:
> On October 21, 2025 5:33 pm, Andrei Perepiolkin via pve-devel wrote:
>> Hi Proxmox Community,
>>
>> There might be a potential consistency problem with Proxmox vm deletion.
>>
>> If Proxmox receives multiple concurrent VM deletion requests, where each
>> VM has multiple disks located on shared storage.
>>
>> The deletion process may fail or hang when attempting to acquire the
>> storage
>> lock(https://github.com/proxmox/pve-storage/blob/master/src/PVE/Storage.pm#L1196C1-L1209C7).
>>
>> ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ...
>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout
>> ...
>>
>> Eventually, the VM configuration files in /etc/pve are removed, but some
>> VM disks may remain.
>>
>> Additionally, the Web UI shows all deletions as successful, even though
>> some disks were not deleted.
>>
>> In my opinion, a VM should either be deleted completely—including all
>> dependent resources—or the deletion should fail, leaving the VM
>> configuration file with an updated state.
> the underlying issue is that the scope of the lock taken for certain
> storage operations is very big for shared storages. we could probably
> reduce it to a more meaningful level for most such storages:
>
> https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962
>
> but the the error handling might also be lacking in this case, would
> have to double-check.
>
>> Im reproducing this by:
>>
>>       for i in `seq 401 420` ; do  qm clone 104 $i --name "win-$i" --full
>> --storage jdss-Pool-2 ; done;
>>
>>       for i in `seq 401 410` ; do  qm destroy $i
>> --destroy-unreferenced-disks 1 --purge 1 &  done ;
>>
>>
>> Have to notice that ssh session that I use to conduct 'qm destroy'
>> command get terminated by Proxmox.
> that seems unexpected, are you sure this is caused by PVE?
>
>> Ive duplicated as a bug at:
>> https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6957
> it would be better to either send a mail or file a bug, to not risk
> splitting the discussion..
>
>> Is this a bug and will it be addressed in near future?
> nobody picked up the work regarding the lock granularity, but it would
> be a nice improvement IMHO!
>
> Fabian
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 160 bytes --]

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