From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 0ED966A89C
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:13 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 05AFE2A4A4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:13 +0100 (CET)
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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id A26632A497
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:11 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 71B2F46E83
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:11 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <0df19ffc-a685-1605-89ea-2f288aba26da@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:09 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/99.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20211216121233.162288-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20211216121233.162288-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211216121233.162288-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.193 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 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 -
URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 2/2] plugins: allow limiting the
number of protected backups per guest
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: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:42:13 -0000
On 16.12.21 13:12, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> The ability to mark backups as protected broke the implicit assumption
> in vzdump that remove=1 and current number of backups being the limit
> (i.e. sum of all keep options) will result in a backup being removed.
>
> Introduce a new storage property 'max-protected-backups' to limit the
> number of protected backups per guest. Use 5 as a default value, as it
> should cover most use cases, while still not having too big of a
> potential overhead in many scenarios.
>
> For external plugins that do not return the backup subtype in
> list_volumes, all protected backups with the same ID will count
> towards the limit.
>
> An alternative would be to count the protected backups when pruning.
> While that would avoid the need for a new property, it would break the
> current semantics of protected backups being ignored for pruning. It
> also would be less flexible, e.g. for PBS, it can make sense to have
> both keep-all=1 and a limit for the number of protected snapshots on
> the PVE side.
>
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
> PVE/Storage.pm | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++
> PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 3 ++-
> PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/CephFSPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/GlusterfsPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm | 1 +
> PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 7 +++++++
> 9 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm
> index d64019f..0643fad 100755
> --- a/PVE/Storage.pm
> +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm
> @@ -232,6 +232,30 @@ sub update_volume_attribute {
> my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid);
> my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type});
>
> + my ($vtype, undef, $vmid) = $plugin->parse_volname($volname);
> + my $max_protected_backups = $scfg->{'max-protected-backups'} // 5;
maybe the default limit should be user privilege dependent? E.g., for root and users
with .Allocate on the storage it wouldn't be a problem to have unlimited (or a higher
count) as default? I mean, it's naturally a bit odd to differ, but one can argue a lot
with auto-magic-convenience ;P
> +
> + if (
> + $vtype eq 'backup'
> + && $vmid
> + && $attribute eq 'protected'
> + && $value
> + && !$plugin->get_volume_attribute($scfg, $storeid, $volname, 'protected')
> + && $max_protected_backups > -1 # -1 is unlimited
> + ) {
> + my $backups = $plugin->list_volumes($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, ['backup']);
> + my ($backup_type) = map { $_->{subtype} } grep { $_->{volid} eq $volid } $backups->@*;
> +
> + my $protected_count = grep {
> + $_->{protected} && (!$backup_type || ($_->{subtype} && $_->{subtype} eq $backup_type))
> + } $backups->@*;
> +
> + if ($max_protected_backups <= $protected_count) {
> + die "The number of protected backups per guest is limited to $max_protected_backups ".
> + "on storage '$storeid'\n";
> + }
> + }
> +
> return $plugin->update_volume_attribute($scfg, $storeid, $volname, $attribute, $value);
> }