From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 C938885F1F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:02:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BD748115CC for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:02:37 +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 id 94478115BB for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:02:36 +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 5E14744E29; Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:02:36 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3b71e3e3-0a21-2ec1-eff2-08ab59966a25@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 22 Dec 2021 08:02:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:96.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/96.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20211216121233.162288-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <976dac28-05b7-12cb-b534-dfdb9712db93@proxmox.com> <c4276c52-cb7d-d83e-a8e7-bab7646460de@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <c4276c52-cb7d-d83e-a8e7-bab7646460de@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.173 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 -2.012 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: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES storage/manager/guest-common/docs] improvements for protected backups 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, 22 Dec 2021 07:02:37 -0000 On 12/21/21 16:11, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 20/12/2021 11:31, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> what do we gain by having a limit on the number of protected backups? > > We avoid allowing users to create an infinite number of backups. > > Remember that unprotected backups do not count towards the keep-X retention > parameters as they are considered a specially marked snapshot outside the > regular schedule, and doing so could lead to situations where no new backup > can be made (if sum of keep-X == sum of protected backups), which can be > pretty bad. > > Now, if a admin wants to limit the amount of backups a user can make of the > VMs those users own, the admin sets now keep-X (which superseded max-backups) > The sum of all keep-X is always the maximal, total amount of backups that can > be made, but if the user marks every new backup immediately as protected they > can overstep that limit arbitrarily, this series addresses that while not > breaking backward comparability. > >> >> storage 2/2 mentions that protection broke some assumption of vzdump >> which is (somehow? not really explained imho) fixing it? >> >> if it's not fixing it, what is the relation between those things? >> >> also, why have a 'magic' -1 value that means indefinite, we could >> simply always have that behavior? >> >> in my opinion, it makes no sense to limit the number of protected >> backups.. > > see above, having the whole picture should bring sense to this.. > >> >> if it is necessary for some reason, it would be good to include >> that reason either in the commit message, or at least in the cover >> letter... >> > > I mean while the cover letter only hints it, commit message from the storage > 2/2 patch is pretty clear to me.. FWIW, this was discussed quite extensively > between Fabian E. and myself, and that result was further discussed with Fabian G. > off-list. OK, i get it now (also talked with fabian g. off-list). i did not conclude from the storage 2/2 patch that it implements an upper limit of backups, so i was confused. Thanks :)