On Thu, Apr 12 2018 12:42:51 +0200, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > > - please send patch series as threads (cover letter and each patch as > > separate mail) and configure the subjectprefix accordingly for each > > repository. this allows inline comments on each patch.
Ok. This particular patchset isn't a series per se but 1 patch each for 4 different repositories, I was kinda wondering how you wanted to deal with that. Subject-prefix answers that I suppose, but it means four threads for this change instead of just one. > > if I understood you correctly, your intended use case is to prevent > > accidentally re-using a guest ID formerly used by a no longer existing > > guest, because of backups / replicated and/or leftover disks that > > reference this ID? Yes, that's correct. > > I assume you have some kind of client / script for managing guests, > > since we don't call /cluster/nextid in our GUI or anywhere else. > > Dominik just pointed out to me that we do in fact use it in the JS code > (I only checked the perl code). sorry for the confusion. > > > wouldn't the simple solution be to keep track of "already used" guest > > IDs in your client? especially if you only have single nodes? > > alternatively, you could just not use /cluster/nextid and instead use > > your own counter (and increment and retry in case the chosen ID is > > already taken - /cluster/nextid does not guarantuee it will still be > > available when you want to use it anyway..). Sure, it's not a guarantee (because it isn't an error to use an unused ID less than nextid -- it would be easy to convert the warning to an error though). But we don't especially need it to be a guarantee, we just want casual web interface use to not end us up in a situation where backups break or data is lost, so it's enough to just fix the suggestion made by the web interface (which is what /cluster/nextid does precisely). > > another approach would be to adapt your snapshot/sync scripts to remove > > sync targets if the source gets removed, or do a forceful full sync if > > an ID gets re-used. the latter is how PVE's builtin ZFS replication > > works if it fails to find a snapshot combination that allows incremental > > sending. That sounds super dangerous. If I delete a VM and then someone creates a new one that now gets the same ID, I also lose all backups of my deleted VM! > > I am a bit hesitant to introduce such special case heuristics, > > especially since we don't know if anybody relies on the current > > semantics of /cluster/nextid > > that point still stands though ;) I didn't make this configurable, because I don't really see how someone could be relying on id's getting reused (unless there's an upper limit to id numbers that could be argued to be reachable). _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel