From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <h.laimer@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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33F07D4E8 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:42:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0C8F11D908 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:41:59 +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 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:41:58 +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 28C9D48529 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:41:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0c4fc16c-0cd1-33e7-dcdd-1d95c6e64b22@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:41:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.1 Content-Language: en-US To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20230915065457.352953-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20230915065457.352953-6-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <9d12f5a9-9700-4485-a34f-38769d35452c@proxmox.com> <7b74879b-acc5-4c58-aed0-35abfa79a72b@proxmox.com> <d77ab4b4-cb30-4d8a-a1f9-e4970a932034@proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <d77ab4b4-cb30-4d8a-a1f9-e4970a932034@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.721 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 -1.473 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 05/23] api2: admin: add (un)mount endpoint for removable datastores X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:42:29 -0000 On 9/21/23 10:37, Lukas Wagner wrote: > > > On 9/21/23 09:50, Hannes Laimer wrote: >> On 9/19/23 15:38, Lukas Wagner wrote: >>> >>> >>> On 9/15/23 08:54, Hannes Laimer wrote: >>>> +pub fn do_mount_device( >>>> + datastore.set_maintenance_mode(None); >>> >>> I think this overrides existing maintenance modes... e.g. if a datastore >>> is 'read-only', unmounted and mounted again, then the 'read-only' >>> mode will be gone. >>> >> Yes, it does. Why should it not? The only situation where that could be >> a problem is if a removable datastore should not be written to at all, >> so it would either be unplugged or ro. But in this case, why setup sync >> jos or backups to a datastore that should not be written to in the first >> place? >> > > I agree that there might be limited number of use cases where this is > actually a problem. That being said, from a user's perspective I would > find this behavior quite surprising if I were to stumble across it. I > guess that's due to the fact that it is not really apparent that 'not > mounted' is also handled as a maintenance mode, that replaces others. > > If you keep this behavior as is, it should at least be documented in the > admin guide. > Makes sense, should add some docs anyway