Hello! I think this hits the same roadblock as #7615, where it ends up migrating without copying the template and it corrupts the VM due to a missing backing file.

@JoaoJandre can you take a look?

Hello! I think this hits the same roadblock as #7615, where it ends up migrating without copying the template and it corrupts the VM due to a missing backing file.

@JoaoJandre can you take a look?

@Rubueno @gpordeus yeah this solution has the same pitfall of #7615. I actually have another solution for this issue (and some others that we have noticed with the VM + volume migration), but I have my hands full this week and will only be able to open the PR(s) next week.

Codecov Report

Attention: Patch coverage is 0% with 12 lines in your changes missing coverage. Please review.

Project coverage is 30.76%. Comparing base (08d9d06) to head (3c1d9a1).
Report is 200 commits behind head on 4.19.

@@             Coverage Diff              @@
##               4.19    #8834      +/-   ##
============================================
- Coverage     30.99%   30.76%   -0.24%     
+ Complexity    34375    34089     -286     
============================================
  Files          5355     5355              
  Lines        376686   376694       +8     
  Branches      54815    54816       +1     
============================================
- Hits         116749   115884     -865     
- Misses       244551   245532     +981     
+ Partials      15386    15278     -108     

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

@JoaoJandre how does your #8911 relate to this? are both sensible/needed or do they conflict?

@JoaoJandre how does your #8911 relate to this? are both sensible/needed or do they conflict?

They do conflict, this PR changes the template copy on live migration. #8911 removes the template copy from the live migration, since #8911 always consolidates the volume, no need to copy the template.

Furthermore, I believe that this PR will have the same issue as #7615 where the VM can be corrupted.

@blueorangutan package

@sureshanaparti a [SL] Jenkins job has been kicked to build packages. It will be bundled with KVM, XenServer and VMware SystemVM templates. I'll keep you posted as I make progress.

Packaging result [SF]: ✔️ el7 ✔️ el8 ✔️ el9 ✔️ debian ✔️ suse15. SL-JID 10078

This pull request has merge conflicts. Dear author, please fix the conflicts and sync your branch with the base branch.

@Rubueno can you fix the conflict?

@Rubueno #7615 is reported to be fixed in #9259. Should this still be merged/is it still relevant?

I don't think so then. I'll close this.