From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [45.144.208.40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id ABEF21FF138 for ; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 15:20:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E70382141A; Mon, 29 Jun 2026 15:20:28 +0200 (CEST) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: Thomas Lamprecht Subject: Re: [PATCH storage,cluster,manager 0/13] multipath: cluster-wide config, storage and health overview In-Reply-To: <20260626121000.2095591-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> (Thomas Lamprecht's message of "Fri, 26 Jun 2026 14:07:30 +0200") References: <20260626121000.2095591-1-t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Mon, 29 Jun 2026 15:20:24 +0200 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1782739213606 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.124 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 Message-ID-Hash: TA27P5H7EWGUK4KXFGXEYOOW53NH5BHB X-Message-ID-Hash: TA27P5H7EWGUK4KXFGXEYOOW53NH5BHB X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Thomas Lamprecht writes: > This is a proof of concept for better multipath support in PVE. I talked it > over with Friedrich back in May and put it together to get early feedback, > also because there is other multipath and iSCSI work going on (for example > Mira's storage mapping series). > > [ .. ] > > Open points: > > [ .. ] > > - Upgrade and adoption: PVE rewrites /etc/multipath/wwids to match its > allow-list, so it drops WWIDs that PVE did not add, which is risky on nodes > whose multipath was set up by hand or that boot from SAN. There is also no > migration from an existing multipath.conf, and a no-touch guarantee for > boot-from-SAN devices needs thought. These patches correctly show the existing WWIDs and their status when installed on a node with an existing /etc/multipath/wwids. In my testing, the "rewrite" only happens after adding a new WWID using the new API. If an automatic upgrade path is not possible, would it be possible to warn the user if /etc/multipath/wwids has entries and /etc/pve/multipath.conf does not exist when adding a new WWID? Perhaps this is enough for the user to do a proper migration. -- Maximiliano