[pve-devel] vm deletion succeeds even if storage deletion fails

[Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG]

Am 15.01.19 um 08:15 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler:
> On Mon, Jan 14, 2019 at 11:04:29AM +0100, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> today i was wondering about some disk images while the vm was deleted.
>>
>> Inspecting the task history i found this log:
>>
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> Could not remove disk 'cephstoroffice:vm-202-disk-1', check manually:
>> error with cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice': got lock request timeout
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> trying to acquire cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice' ...
>> error with cfs lock 'storage-cephstoroffice': got lock request timeout
>> TASK OK
>>
>> so the vm was deleted but the storage was left unclean. Is this a known
>> bug? If not can someone point me to the code so i can provide a patch.
> 
> this was changed intentionally because users complained that there is no
> way to delete a VM config that references an undeletable disk (e.g.,
> because a storage is down).

hui - really? But this leaves you unused disks behind? What happens if
another user get's the same VM id? This sounds a bit weird to me.

> if you want to improve this further, we could discuss adding a 'force'
> parameter to the 'destroy_vm' API call (in PVE/API2/Qemu.pm) and
> 'destroy_vm' in PVE/QemuServer.pm, and adapting the latter to only
> ignore disk removal errors in case it is set?
> 
> I am not sure how many people might rely on the current behaviour, which
> has been like this since (the end of) 2016..
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
> https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
>