From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <oscar@dearriba.es>
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 <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; 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 <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; 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: <xms:Z8etYwAq2S2cf2gq1XDX5ujMYdpLBL-Vy_1b2jrd_RGUwhERz0QINA>
<xme:Z8etYyj-KKElnYr5B-CXL86E0eGNG8xnXlI4h8Bc2yAh1MiDHOQbrotTlGvwT4ixT
u9qsCEsy1kWwwmLE9o>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvhedrieeggdelhecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf
curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu
uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc
fjughrpefofgggkfgjfhffhffvufgtsegrtderreerreejnecuhfhrohhmpenmshgtrghr
ucguvgcutehrrhhisggruceoohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsheqnecuggftrf
grthhtvghrnhephedtteeukeefhfeukeelieefteegfeekkefhkeekgfeijeelkeehtdej
leduueeknecuvehluhhsthgvrhfuihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehmrghilhhfrhhomh
epohhstggrrhesuggvrghrrhhisggrrdgvsh
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:aMetYzl_DGeOFQJgBJu_ktvwhhd6ZDuhhNq4pgQ6YaeROE2X9VOcYQ>
<xmx:aMetY2zNDhbXAZttjJrUM-z6wE-QEyM7MSjpWkfBrxYAr31neTEObg>
<xmx:aMetY1RDsPRkZAyMvgyWqf2Y154Jy8UQdLZz60PWgBXLcdLxnIxjEw>
<xmx:aMetYwPOrz_VbbKEXDO4mq3KCogQNhl-f9SCbyym89ux1Sp3CFYZLQ>
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: <cae87493-98a5-4256-b9a3-8af41931afea@app.fastmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <64119642-e2a3-428a-a053-371f9fc6bda0@app.fastmail.com>
References: <mailman.3.1672225201.17323.pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
<e207771d-7f93-415a-82fd-c3c8488d1e80@app.fastmail.com>
<b462e244-86a1-eada-c50b-4361f037dc1e@holub.co.at>
<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?= <oscar@dearriba.es>
To: "Martin Holub" <martin@holub.co.at>, 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 <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>,
<mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>,
<mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=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