From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <c.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 E856BB9755 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CE1D9E21C for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:43 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:42 +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 8DA86489D9 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:42 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1e1eec22-99d8-45b2-a70e-28dad0850faa@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2024 15:03:41 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US, de-DE To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240305092703.126906-26-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <105589548.11753.1710323013727@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <105589548.11753.1710323013727@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.038 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 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: [pbs-devel] [RFC v2 proxmox-backup 25/36] upload stream: impl reused chunk injector 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, 14 Mar 2024 14:03:44 -0000 On 3/13/24 10:43, Dietmar Maurer wrote: > From a high level Perspective, this looks a > bit too complicated. Cant we simply drop the current chunker > when we want to force a chunk-boundary, and start a new one > after the injected chunks later? Looking at this in more detail I am not sure what exactly would be the benefit of dropping the chunker instance, since the boundary has to be found in the byte stream buffer anyways and since we do not actually know the BytesMut for the reused chunks to be returned by the poll, the queues to pass the ReusableDynamicEntries and the boundary where in the BackupWriter upload stream they are required nevertheless (see also patch 26 for the chunking itself).