From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <dea@corep.it>
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 3391B90539
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1670F5D29
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:37 +0100 (CET)
Received: from mail.corep.it (mail.corep.it [93.186.252.128])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:35 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <37dc5e1b-44d2-70d3-803f-d2d88b10bdcf@corep.it>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:35 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.8.0
To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <7ab47597-6ed5-f577-49b5-c011b67ad1a8@corep.it>
 <37b93c67-fbae-3736-26a2-9ff3af7dc4fd@corep.it>
 <d18c1576-0eba-ee9c-281b-9b7e23ce1c89@proxmox.com>
 <e9f18faf-d7d1-ba40-c517-b7902a669fee@corep.it>
From: dea <dea@corep.it>
In-Reply-To: <e9f18faf-d7d1-ba40-c517-b7902a669fee@corep.it>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.328 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] Possible problem on NFS storage with release 2-3-3
 (??)
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: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 07:51:37 -0000

Hi Thomas,

what I am about to say is not related to the problem, but it has a sense 
that connects it.

If it were possible during the garbage collect function to introduce 
"checkpoints" so that in the case of a reboot or upgrade a days' worth 
of work is not thrown away, it would really be a great step forward.
Now I use about 300 Tbytes of hybrid storage (HDD with acceleration SSD) 
and about 25 Tbytes of full SSD and the garbage collect function is 
really onerous on the hybrid storage.
If I were to increase the capacity to 1 Pbyte and more, it would be 
really difficult to manage.


Thanks

Luca