On October 22, 2025 4:38 pm, Andrei Perepiolkin wrote: > Hi Fabian, > > > I can try to prototype some proof-of-concept solution for 'lock > granularity'.
see https://pve.proxmox.com/wiki/Developer_Documentation for details of how to submit patches (in particular also "Software License and Copyright"). > Once it is done, the issue of ssh session termination should become clear. it would be interesting, because right now I don't really see how a `qm` invocation should kill the SSH session it is running in - it definitely should not happen! > Im new to mail-based contribution and Proxmox code itself. > So I will probably have questions on various topics. > > Should I send this questions via email, as messages in bugzila or via > other tool? questions regarding patch development (both the workflow, and the patch contents) are probably best discussed here on the list. feel free to continue this thread, unless it is a very generic question. > On 10/22/25 05:49, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> On October 21, 2025 5:33 pm, Andrei Perepiolkin via pve-devel wrote: >>> Hi Proxmox Community, >>> >>> There might be a potential consistency problem with Proxmox vm deletion. >>> >>> If Proxmox receives multiple concurrent VM deletion requests, where each >>> VM has multiple disks located on shared storage. >>> >>> The deletion process may fail or hang when attempting to acquire the >>> storage >>> lock(https://github.com/proxmox/pve-storage/blob/master/src/PVE/Storage.pm#L1196C1-L1209C7). >>> >>> ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' ... >>> cfs-lock 'storage-jdss-Pool-2' error: got lock request timeout >>> ... >>> >>> Eventually, the VM configuration files in /etc/pve are removed, but some >>> VM disks may remain. >>> >>> Additionally, the Web UI shows all deletions as successful, even though >>> some disks were not deleted. >>> >>> In my opinion, a VM should either be deleted completely—including all >>> dependent resources—or the deletion should fail, leaving the VM >>> configuration file with an updated state. >> the underlying issue is that the scope of the lock taken for certain >> storage operations is very big for shared storages. we could probably >> reduce it to a more meaningful level for most such storages: >> >> https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1962 >> >> but the the error handling might also be lacking in this case, would >> have to double-check. >> >>> Im reproducing this by: >>> >>> for i in `seq 401 420` ; do qm clone 104 $i --name "win-$i" --full >>> --storage jdss-Pool-2 ; done; >>> >>> for i in `seq 401 410` ; do qm destroy $i >>> --destroy-unreferenced-disks 1 --purge 1 & done ; >>> >>> >>> Have to notice that ssh session that I use to conduct 'qm destroy' >>> command get terminated by Proxmox. >> that seems unexpected, are you sure this is caused by PVE? >> >>> Ive duplicated as a bug at: >>> https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=6957 >> it would be better to either send a mail or file a bug, to not risk >> splitting the discussion.. >> >>> Is this a bug and will it be addressed in near future? >> nobody picked up the work regarding the lock granularity, but it would >> be a nice improvement IMHO! >> >> Fabian >> > > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
