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 0EB069283E for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 18:00:00 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D9CA598AC for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 17:59:29 +0100 (CET) Received: from out2-smtp.messagingengine.com (out2-smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.26]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 17:59:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from compute5.internal (compute5.nyi.internal [10.202.2.45]) by mailout.nyi.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6FD925C00CF; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 11:59:20 -0500 (EST) Received: from imap50 ([10.202.2.100]) by compute5.internal (MEProxy); Thu, 29 Dec 2022 11:59:20 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dearriba.es; h= cc:content-type:date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to :message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject :subject:to:to; s=fm1; t=1672333160; x=1672419560; bh=AOFzkp+dDC yAU68OWvRI9lSWiRgf3rDKHdcjJgtgZnw=; b=KTZoF2lr56YCdGBNyxWJq8Ff8I 9GwS/hISRytNGEAfjEqIetsZmnFaHUDDOLtQMIEA7PuNZO6wvl9R0hfHud1K2G2E 96zegKTR0JrqcWimTWBOXdmplpPVKc7M9O2gQR7wkyPONAyL1Zf9yTS0cKtc6l2v 0sjsTClZJeRDgFeqBNqYkGC62rtZlJNtPQShWo3jXBn4Kbew69HdrOHHBWcYYPY3 SuQxLNjLxewn/zEcAMER6blM4C/ZzOYTJNNTZOBU73z+TEilMqwhyVeS/Ox7x32S B6x62JqxHNFedyuVZBz/17euqvhjXHbT4xKOt/Ep163/BvQ8HXaO/MvNkQKQ== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-type:date:date:feedback-id :feedback-id:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm2; t=1672333160; x=1672419560; bh=AOFzkp+dDCyAU68OWvRI9lSWiRgf 3rDKHdcjJgtgZnw=; b=AyneK/zXnur1TYJAC5nBfK/bLgZffBoQDrMb+hPhUCGj 5TK8BRNoMwrbxY9aGa/HKPz1oj3HHi1RpWXbrlMANKNB7RkPyTy8alHPSUGb2jyn r/M2ZlBbK16fQbvmNs2OMwGXQdKKw//SU5K5XNK9KFow0S+LJ3CwiisEqqmlAx38 TfG2Ldoli+2mdzVSe9cbJQVahZVjgdF1iWzw/3fJNgqmTbu/ovHnGXyfmTYpLqnz b7qPATi2aD93xk5qFyUX9HJjJtZ9XTQhGwYbAv4JoztSXHxDrSfAPMizHNkoPK8u h14HjnbrhgsF4VcGDK0uixMVDCRlwLrX4SpbJxvcWQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrieeggdelhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpenmshgtrghr ucguvgcutehrrhhisggruceoohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsheqnecuggftrf grthhtvghrnhephedtteeukeefhfeukeelieefteegfeekkefhkeekgfeijeelkeehtdej leduueeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh epohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsh X-ME-Proxy: Feedback-ID: ib1694623:Fastmail Received: by mailuser.nyi.internal (Postfix, from userid 501) id E9459170007E; Thu, 29 Dec 2022 11:59:19 -0500 (EST) X-Mailer: MessagingEngine.com Webmail Interface User-Agent: Cyrus-JMAP/3.7.0-alpha0-1185-g841157300a-fm-20221208.002-g84115730 Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: In-Reply-To: <64119642-e2a3-428a-a053-371f9fc6bda0@app.fastmail.com> References: <64119642-e2a3-428a-a053-371f9fc6bda0@app.fastmail.com> Date: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 17:58:51 +0100 From: =?UTF-8?Q?=C3=93scar_de_Arriba?= To: "Martin Holub" , pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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 HTML_MESSAGE 0.001 HTML included in message JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL 0.5 SPF set to ?all 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_PASS -0.001 SPF: HELO matches SPF record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.29 Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Thin LVM showing more used space than expected 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: Thu, 29 Dec 2022 17:00:00 -0000 Update: I have enabled `Discard` option in all disks of the VMs on that = server and then `fstim` did the work and freed some space. However, even removing all VMs except one (which is hard to remove witho= ut disruption) I can see that: root@venom:~# lvs LV VG Attr LSize Pool Origin Data% Meta% Move Lo= g Cpy%Sync Convert data pve twi-aotz-- 377.55g 60.65 0.67 = =20 root pve -wi-ao---- 60.00g = =20 swap pve -wi-ao---- 4.00g = =20 vm-201-disk-0 pve Vwi-aotz-- 4.00m data 14.06 = =20 vm-201-disk-1 pve Vwi-aotz-- 40.00g data 56.58 Which means that I have about 200 GB used out of nowhere :( At least it = is no longer under pressure of being almost 100% full. On Thu, Dec 29, 2022, at 11:48, =C3=93scar de Arriba wrote: > Any idea why it still has 96.23% of space used but the VMs are using w= ay less? I'm starting to worry a lot about it (I don't kant tobe really = full) and my current only hope is backup + reinstall PVE. >=20 > Thanks, > Oscar >=20 > On Thu, Dec 29, 2022, at 11:01, Martin Holub wrote: >>=20 >>=20 >> Am 28.12.2022 um 12:44 schrieb =C3=93scar de Arriba: >>> Hi Martin, >>>=20 >>> > Did you try to run a fstrim on the VMs to regain the allocated spa= ce? At least on linux something like "fstrim -av" should do the trick. >>>=20 >>> I did it now and it freed ~55GiB of a running isntance (the one with= 128 GiB allocated). However that should only free blocks of the LV used= to store that VM disk, right? And the issue itself is that the sum of m= aximum allocations of those disks is much lower than the space occupied. >>>=20 >>> I also have the feeling that those blocks remain used by a no longer= existant LVs, but I don't know how to fix it. >>>=20 >>> Should I also enable trim/execute trim on Proxmox itself? >>>=20 >>> Oscar >>>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >>=20 >> Hi, >>=20 >> TRIM only works on a filesystem level, so you can't trim a VG or simi= lar. On the pve host i doubt it will help, but it wouldn't harm either.=20 >>=20 >> hth >> Martin >>=20 >>=20 >=20