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)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293859C15A for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:03:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EF49213EDF for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:03:13 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:03:13 +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 B891C4447D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:03:12 +0200 (CEST) Date: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 15:03:11 +0200 (CEST) From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Message-ID: <260764959.1312.1698066191830@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <47924ea8-097e-4dbe-979d-021566e564f5@proxmox.com> References: <20231023111835.238407-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <47924ea8-097e-4dbe-979d-021566e564f5@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev53 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.076 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC v2 pve-container pve-manager 0/3] add partial restore 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: Mon, 23 Oct 2023 13:03:14 -0000 Oh, okay! I was not aware of these patches, thanks for letting me know. Yes, being consistent with the UI/API for both VM and LXC restores is desired. I was planning on doing the VM part next, but since there already is a patch series for this I will definitely work on a common denominator for these. Thanks also for the first comments, will include changes regarding this into an updated version. I will also take you up on the offer to pick-up a rebased version of these patches. Cheers, Chris > On 23.10.2023 14:47 CEST Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> wrote: > > > Am 23.10.23 um 13:18 schrieb Christian Ebner: > > This patch series adds functionality to partially restore containers > > from backup, by allowing the user to selectively include/exclude > > mountpoints for restore. Mountpoints not included in the backup will not > > be deleted and recreated but rather attached to the container as unused > > disk after the restore. The same is true for mountpoints selected by the > > user to be excluded during restore. > > > > FYI, there is an old series [0] adding a similar feature for VMs. It > would be nice if we could have the API/UI be not too different between > them. Of course, it's not set in stone how it's done there (since it > didn't get applied ;)), but it would be great if we could come up with a > solution that works for both cases. If you really want, you could even > pick up those patches in your next version of the series (just tell me > if you need a rebased version). > > Didn't have time to take a close look yet, just noting that > 'exclude-mps' is not specific enough as a parameter name for the > 'create' API call. The name really should include the word 'restore' or > similar, and you can add a requires => 'restore' to the schema > definition of the parameter. > > [0]: https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2022-April/052720.html