From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 756CF1FF15C for ; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 09:12:55 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DF6C6EC5E; Wed, 5 Mar 2025 09:12:50 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 05 Mar 2025 09:12:13 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Christian Ebner , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Thomas Lamprecht References: <20250219164847.757184-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250219164847.757184-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1741005633.eo593uhjhw.astroid@yuna.none> <1151f4cb-36f2-4bb7-9e15-1d52850cc23a@proxmox.com> <7c0d6e54-1f71-4c05-b4f6-00779b8d2673@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7c0d6e54-1f71-4c05-b4f6-00779b8d2673@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1741161467.n7xtjkjof1.astroid@yuna.none> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.045 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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 2/2] pbs api types: add option to set GC chunk cleanup wait period X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" On March 4, 2025 5:49 pm, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 04.03.25 um 17:37 schrieb Christian Ebner: >> On 3/4/25 17:01, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> Would be fine by me to reducing the minimum to zero. And the extra 5 >>> minutes are "just to be sure" safety-margin, not a requirement for >>> anything IIRC. >> >> Discussed this with Fabian rather extensively today. Only reason to keep >> a small safety margin here is for small time drift in case of remote >> storages (if they use their local time for timestamps). > > Ah, you mean network attached remote storage, but while your reasons > below are fine, doing this for time drifts is IMO not really strong > argumentation, as if one allows for no time synchronisation then there > won't be a limit to the drift amount, but ... actually, the translation from UTIME_NOW to timestamp happens in the local kernel, so time drift shouldn't matter much here.. >> But this can be much lower, would opt for 1 minute to stay within the >> minute range. >> >> Also, atime always uses the coarse resolution for timestamp updates, >> that will also not change with the multi-grained timestamp resolutions >> in https://origin.kernel.org/doc/html/v6.13/filesystems/multigrain-ts.html >> So this has to be taken into account for the atime update check, and >> since setting the atime into the past will introduce other error modes >> (permissions, fs impl, ...), a short wait of a 1 second in-between must >> be used. >> >> Also, there is no distinction to be made between filesystems mounted >> with atime and relatime, if the explicit atime update fails, the GC > > ... this actually is a strong argument, so I'm fine with a Minute as > minimum. but this is still a valid reason to leave a small buffer :) _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel