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 9B9966AFB9 for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:34:40 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8E3F02A14F for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:34:10 +0100 (CET) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [217.72.192.78]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id E38582A13B for ; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:34:09 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=dbaedf251592; t=1616772849; bh=LvCJiaV9xGFU8FD+q26MGzW0JGVidN15F3RpFLW6dhs=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:To:From:Subject:Cc:Date; b=rtVb4H4FB9P/AOPfSD0v/SnEaaYmUIvcVs9dXT7hvqfU9SsN5Utc0YoTdWbC9/JZP 9CXg2id522vmOnPROsdYcgMjv2hKdcbEyUTBtGwB0ppPmHwfd3khToHwfRxS0NMfP4 z9KISzjemJsbauwJrI38SSHpF35ak93MHaUGqX/0= X-UI-Sender-Class: c548c8c5-30a9-4db5-a2e7-cb6cb037b8f9 Received: from Rolands-MacBook-Pro.cybercon.de ([37.24.118.138]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb106 [213.165.67.124]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1Mcpuy-1lzQKA1IkU-00Ztpd; Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:28:48 +0100 To: PVE User List From: Roland Message-ID: Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 16:29:00 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.8.1 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:UtMY+YTbyUvp/78anH3ESyVhHY+EeTOr/cxYqWg7/byuUwyBP8E Wc5tFJmXnKw7/qDYyLAx9XtiIiHOs5lVPNcmj/ie0ZXfPgdIIm3UKIFAgWSFA4n/8WCSHaq zsinPV4YcDn+BG5YaVNYldIdM/Oz7fKE6oZcrmQohzLm9AhGfPO9pr3M6cdwjhWujOiRV3z vIsDtRQ7rNmmSIKWuGK6Q== X-Spam-Flag: NO X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V03:K0:hkCCsCsdZEg=:piWPl/Vp33gBGBeXThumzq tAkGedr6xCo9Ay42Kp7fmRR+jxuB7VZe1vZZG3Yf8tgHLYR8ZMM1qrebtEM4KVemTSrYrCW4z wGUoDunYOX2l+txGBTFo+cZ7u1WuaZJB+vXKzAs9L8ovn3QXkgVtEfl1Tz8Nw/viY/ge81fzb WyK1ma9VjRxu6yof7ZoB9Ip2kUTabaWhI1FX63jCzeK0jqRWSS5COgyWst8WD+vk4Do7ku6XX j1phSZTjmxlHr/ub7w35z5ZdoHKvhgsoBrSweduKEzgDUbjWNzJysLOU6+sTb5y04a37n9xh4 u2fHVh7GoNVdVNW6VZtbiJXx9ixgFvUyD/TvwX4dO9yN0BhK//5OJ96gK3lM4GLleGEt1zxYm UNRp+OHKPuihvZX+zw6zxcqjArJSQjIeVO8pOZZWestHZwgn3d13Hhtb/TyqF2KoIjg9bbzf9 1HBDLh42rgynFOQv+/d28K3ecZfnt/r/iwLvheGBtR8tyG/k+jPvNwqCvPFrWQ7HO7mCI7hTq DQy8alaAE0aZJh7ozdkNzzOrKjetQQy5dCSBOLjmd2fEs6ntN96/4ZPBqCUev59ux92vs5uhl 4PhslEnrVwJRLG2m9eFdgctVs+8RD2UmuTGdu9Ip47nbHYcVG71NgsLOS3gRXURTbWzoc8Nz0 1RycfpqiwJCetEEoXTuxdqQobCdX3j8UG86hjFt68jYykiBziz/leZCS/CW7rumPC55JEpirK JlGv/VQ9h2eMq5GP2/KJtFY2v71yE8P7QIv35742mWFpm0E3C8Nm+swNouoTVeUesXqRYjBOL AeFGVxo8XurtoWla2xLl7nyXIGOp+LNRR9C6Tqit2fCu07zHFOpJfM/2aay+BOOpsQUjtA4UA RPiPOCwKfe9dYCLjY33WxU+/CCjwNZK23Wx2iFhAJiv3dInVcX7hCjRiArAmVn4w8RgttAW00 mJz6zGiONzC9mum1gYtmOwoK+MXDhstfAhGmsE0weIphbubWOC/qiQC618QAhCzAhjVwbd6lm VgZewHpWYy+mgsh7TZcSd9aS3u6UdhWDUX9cpz8dtKm/+FoW+JDCmJ6AAFF91WXjF24Qd3Mtk QW5C+oo5X2xbjfMYHR8iHjJFBmmUNTE1a9rVSoDk5VJIoH7WnfkNV1v86/9YTue1ji/9h0xlO uA0Oxe4hOfoxFnS2Ew/X5lJRlORuLDJQSRejtqWfuyhcvJBB4w5/Wcf6N60CQcgVENM7c= X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.299 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 FAKE_REPLY_A1 2.599 - FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 0.001 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL 0.001 Mailspike good senders SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] offline VM migration node1->node2 with local storage 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: Fri, 26 Mar 2021 15:34:40 -0000 Hello, to pick up this older one: >>On 2/16/20 11:28 AM, Roland @web.de wrote: >/> why do i need to have the same local storage name when migrating a vm = />>/from node1 to node2 in dual-node cluster with local disks ? />>//>>/i'= m curious that migration is possible in online state (which is much />>/mo= re complex/challenging task) without a problem, but offline i get />/> "st= orage is not available on selected target" (because there are />/> differe= nz zfs pools on both machines) /> >This is because offline and online migration use two very different >mechanism. >AFAIK Qemu NBD is used for online migration and ZFS send->recv is used >for offline migration. i had a closer look on offline-migration, and apparently zfs send->recv is= only being used with ZVOLS, the default for VMs on ZFS. for normal (qcow/raw...) files on any filesystem (even zfs), pvesm export/= import is being used. this is working straightforward and apparently, it seems there is missing appropriate logic inside proxmox including missing parameterization in the= webgui (and probably error handling etc..) !? for example, on the target system i can open a "receiver" like this: # pvesm import ${TARGETDS}:100/vm-100-disk-0.qcow2 qcow2+size tcp://10.16.= 37.0/24 -with-snapshots 1 -allow-rename 1 where on the source i can send the data like this: # /sbin/pvesm export ${SOURCEDS}:100/vm-100-disk-0.qcow2 qcow2+size - -wit= h-snapshots 1|mbuffer -O 10.16.37.55:60000 so we apparently see, what's being needed exists at the base level... >>//>>/i guess there is no real technical hurdle, it just needs to get />>= /implemented appropriatley !? /> >There is a patch in the works to make different target storages possible >for offline migration. has there been any progress on this in the meantime ? regards Roland