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 9CCC86003B for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:25:42 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8DEFD187A2 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:25:12 +0100 (CET) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (pmg.fws.fr [51.91.175.36]) (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 ADE6118798 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:25:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9AB1CC18BC for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:45 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (zmproxy.fws.fr [10.29.1.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 6DABCC01EE for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 61636880740; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:44 +0100 (CET) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49050880741; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:44 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmproxy.fws.fr 49050880741 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=firewall-services.com; s=7DAD15A2-D84A-11E9-8F77-BEC4FAA34EBC; t=1606897064; bh=AqQmEJYNzaLZvKDAZ/M/fzbT3Y1yYNiv1YKs1C1OmTA=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=OsxA9fp6L7EDsZcErVy/nCD2/ohgAy6GfHIlYzqY1P1/MoCXtYBIoSFjRQ/OUDHlp /IfcVPpPkLXM99Kbd/jwTFYz0DRXe1BQMqwbpjCxw7ncngTLXkmuqdp1JJpXfywtFd WYwi/suR9f1dTBbBx482GtZQvN3W2Bvhv6+cg2UK5k0CmMiYIfkaC9zyiHCpnmLwKT tqsy0jfVG3Yq7+WNwjT7ZwGr8Ae5NJR2CHM/9NFsFZoHW2+RpSeoKNEZ4vS/7H/6Tw wkIe0SDmD7r8z19b7JVeMey9DiNMaWkaCWNnn0sqMDdLYJNIMjf2Z7LStDkllDNTWM mit7l6ZFw3Z/g== Received: from zmstore.fws.fr (zmstore.fws.fr [10.29.3.15]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 441A4880740 for ; Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:44 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 2 Dec 2020 09:17:44 +0100 (CET) From: Daniel Berteaud To: Proxmox VE user list Message-ID: <20758633.47066.1606897064143.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> In-Reply-To: <20201202171102.03c7f2e2@batzmaru.gol.ad.jp> References: <20201202171102.03c7f2e2@batzmaru.gol.ad.jp> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.29.1.17] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3980 (ZimbraWebClient - GC86 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3980) Thread-Topic: Live VM migration 6.3 to 6.2 fails Thread-Index: ZJgWqwuskrbOP6NgkazpGooCBH6whg== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.010 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [fws.fr, firewall-services.com] Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Live VM migration 6.3 to 6.2 fails X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 02 Dec 2020 08:25:42 -0000 ----- Le 2 D=C3=A9c 20, =C3=A0 9:11, Christian Balzer chibi@gol.com a =C3= =A9crit : > Hello, >=20 > yes I know that migrating back to an older version is not guaranteed but > I'm rather confused as to why this happens. >=20 > Firstly this, more details below: > --- > 2020-12-02 16:34:08 start migrate command to tcp:10.0.0.11:60000 > 2020-12-02 16:34:09 migration status error: failed > 2020-12-02 16:34:09 ERROR: online migrate failure - aborting > 2020-12-02 16:34:09 aborting phase 2 - cleanup resources > 2020-12-02 16:34:09 migrate_cancel > 2020-12-02 16:34:11 ERROR: migration finished with problems (duration 00:= 00:08) > TASK ERROR: migration problems > --- >=20 > That's all I get, where would one find the exact issue? >=20 > Now for the details, in the previous minor upgrade we saw a similar issue= , > but that only affected VMs which had been created on an upgraded node, ol= d > ones were fine to move in both ways. > OK, that was because of new features int he VM definition not present on > the old version, understandable. >=20 > With this one on a (more frequently updated) test cluster 6.3 to 6.2 > migrations also works, the test cluster old nodes are at > pve-manager (6.2-12), the one with issues are pve-manager (6.2-6). > I however see nothing in the changelogs which would explain this differen= ce. >=20 > In general being able to live migrate back to a node with the previous > version is a very desirable situation, since if there are issues/bugs (on > the VM level) with the new version there no longer is an impact free way > of reverting if this functionality is not present. >=20 That's most likely the QEMU version 5.1 on the 6.3 node vs QEMU 5.0 on the = 6.2 one. There's no migration support from newer to older, only from older to newer. Cheers, Daniel --=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ ] =09 Daniel Berteaud=20 FIREWALL-SERVICES SAS, La s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des r=C3=A9seaux=20 Soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de Services en Logiciels Libres=20 T=C3=A9l : +33.5 56 64 15 32=20 Matrix: @dani:fws.fr=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ | https://www.firewall-services.com ]