From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3B768471
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:32:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 9FECE9848
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:32:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [94.136.29.106])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:32:58 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0BBBA40DC4
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:32:58 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <0412c83b-9d08-f35e-dd71-47d1cd3af7cf@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 11:32:57 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.12.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Alexander Zeidler <a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
References: <20230727083759.19001-1-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
 <20230727083759.19001-5-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20230727083759.19001-5-a.zeidler@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.001 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 NICE_REPLY_A            -0.09 Looks like a legit reply (A)
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE    -0.01 -
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 guest-common 4/5] fix #3069: vzdump:
 schema: add 'pbs-entries-max' property
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Jul 2023 09:32:58 -0000

Am 27.07.23 um 10:37 schrieb Alexander Zeidler:
> diff --git a/src/PVE/VZDump/Common.pm b/src/PVE/VZDump/Common.pm
> index 31e9fdb..ba4a61a 100644
> --- a/src/PVE/VZDump/Common.pm
> +++ b/src/PVE/VZDump/Common.pm
> @@ -88,6 +88,16 @@ PVE::JSONSchema::register_format('backup-performance', {
>  	default => 16,
>  	optional => 1,
>      },
> +    'pbs-entries-max' => {
> +	description => "Applies to container backups sent to PBS. Limits the number of entries "
> +	    ."allowed in memory at a given time to avoid unintended OOM situations. Increase it to "
> +	    ."enable backups of folders with a large amount of files. It must be minimum the sum "

Nit: I thought the traversing algorithm we have in the backup client
requires at most that number of elements or did I misunderstand again?
So lower values could work depending on the actual structure, thus
saying "must" is not technically correct. So maybe say "should be at
least the sum" ("at least" sounds more natural than "minimum" IMHO)?

> +	    ."of all file/folder siblings at each level in its path.",