[pve-devel] [PATCH manager 2/3] Allow setting targetstorage for offline migration

[Tim Marx]

> Fabian Ebner <f.ebner at proxmox.com> hat am 4. Mai 2020 09:26 geschrieben:
> 
>  
> On 5/2/20 11:40 AM, Alexandre DERUMIER wrote:
> >>> The problem is that offline migration with target storage might not
> >>> always work depending on supported export/import formats. Then users
> >>> might start an offline migration, which then fails after a few disks
> >>> have already been copied.
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > Technically, it could be possible to support any kind of src/dst format for offline migration,
> > with creating an nbd server on target (with qemu-nbd for example).
> > 
> > Maybe it could be implemented as fallback, if any other method exist ?
> > 
> > 
> 
> Yes, that would be nice to have. Now I think that making the target 
> storage option for offline migration available via GUI should wait until 
> we either:
> 1. have a way to error out early
> or even better:
> 2. can support all possible exports/imports with such a general fallback 
> method.
> 
> > 
> > 
> > ----- Mail original -----
> > De: "Fabian Ebner" <f.ebner at proxmox.com>
> > À: "pve-devel" <pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com>
> > Envoyé: Jeudi 30 Avril 2020 13:15:59
> > Objet: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager 2/3] Allow setting targetstorage for offline migration
> > 
> > Let's make this one an RFC ;)
> > The problem is that offline migration with target storage might not
> > always work depending on supported export/import formats. Then users
> > might start an offline migration, which then fails after a few disks
> > have already been copied.
> > If we had a check for the export/import formats before starting
> > migration, it would improve. But currently the erroring out happens on a
> > per disk basis inside storage_migrate.
> > 
> > So I'm not sure anymore if this is an improvement. If not, and if patch
> > #3 is fine, I'll send a v2 without this one.
> > 
> > On 30.04.20 12:59, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> >> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner at proxmox.com>
> >> ---
> >> www/manager6/window/Migrate.js | 12 ++----------
> >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js b/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js
> >> index 9fc66a9b..20e057ad 100644
> >> --- a/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js
> >> +++ b/www/manager6/window/Migrate.js
> >> @@ -44,13 +44,6 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Migrate', {
> >> return gettext('Offline');
> >> }
> >> },
> >> - setStorageselectorHidden: function(get) {
> >> - if (get('migration.with-local-disks') && get('running')) {
> >> - return false;
> >> - } else {
> >> - return true;
> >> - }
> >> - },
> >> setLocalResourceCheckboxHidden: function(get) {
> >> if (get('running') || !get('migration.hasLocalResources') ||
> >> Proxmox.UserName !== 'root at pam') {
> >> @@ -126,8 +119,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Migrate', {
> >> if (vm.get('migration.with-local-disks')) {
> >> params['with-local-disks'] = 1;
> >> }
> >> - //only submit targetstorage if vm is running, storage migration to different storage is only possible online
> >> - if (vm.get('migration.with-local-disks') && vm.get('running')) {
> >> + if (vm.get('migration.with-local-disks')) {
> >> params.targetstorage = values.targetstorage;
> >> }
> >>
> >> @@ -352,7 +344,7 @@ Ext.define('PVE.window.Migrate', {
> >> fieldLabel: gettext('Target storage'),
> >> storageContent: 'images',
> >> bind: {
> >> - hidden: '{setStorageselectorHidden}'
> >> + hidden: '{!migration.with-local-disks}',
> >> }
> >> },
> >> {
> >>
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pve-devel mailing list
> > pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
> > https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> > 
> > _______________________________________________
> > pve-devel mailing list
> > pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
> > https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
> > 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> pve-devel mailing list
> pve-devel at pve.proxmox.com
> https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel

Couldn't we check this in the precondition api call or do I miss something?