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@pve.proxmox.com > https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel > _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@pve.proxmox.com https://pve.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel