From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (gate001.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a0f:8001:1:32::40]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 07CB31FF0EB for ; Sun, 09 Aug 2026 21:42:06 +0200 (CEST) Received: from gate001.proxmox.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by gate001.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5D9D021576; Sun, 09 Aug 2026 21:42:05 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20251104; t=1786304509; x=1786909309; darn=lists.proxmox.com; h=subject:to:from:date:message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to:content-type; bh=XEdxAI3jELq1aRM42IhrbKvIQmH2qSfZ4O1fn3T9+ZM=; b=hA7ejK33Go+wCnxVafZ3AZ8hRd6lyWL2Y8ks68kKtOt009c3t6TjxYV2RHEArfe+3k /FYwLjvjQBuyYbui7NJmlwQxp/rtQPY7l5u77oywDYGIqvB8G/CNgk0qqUGlsbfih7jA wj3sMIfqcAl+ZD6HlRqiMAsZg7AY4arO/4W/lSBzC48jx7LYryW+iCnyAWdMQArI9Vrb 6ZzQHMOiqMvrnwX6i/oSnEiFaM9QPqPGpHvrO7ELp31k7dVKorxHWZ7Iymdo7+Of7qkx ceEeow1CsWgPEfu1iZEhMkAmmAFL1KBgRQLgLq8cK1CNMs6h001IclJC6G7cX2xfF0Vg foiQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20251104; t=1786304509; x=1786909309; h=subject:to:from:date:message-id:x-gm-gg:x-gm-message-state:from:to :cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to:content-type; bh=XEdxAI3jELq1aRM42IhrbKvIQmH2qSfZ4O1fn3T9+ZM=; b=S1FM5BVRmeBYroYq+BOQ321bB2WyUeY3wuEdzS0Fcb/Lq3H/wg9BuhWj1hheBU1I+B j2Yz23aQsMYhr19J9ToRfk8kwjB2cJPMqj0aZy+G+psuJ+WhY4aEBnnP0BIS932NATHV Y8fSinWCING/7ZvLKzDuSujcPHcWuWjVfCxxbyReh4G/dEsIQN5poWhh01sDSXMILVDl LHu4tuiR459yOm25ezJJTy0NMLk/oIjMJJOnUsjacIdbrBg0vFeHK/id800dNCo26N7+ oZGtFSYjzd1Rvu1AvkEJlyes5gG2vRZAZwLVvnYhgQV77eSJMLhPc4V7t8N26Phohv2V j88A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yya5Q2Z0vq0G6xYEQt6Wdulm7A3B9DjIMwUKvUMOC3fAGPS/nCg ixenx33fp8rcvkf9i0+3dOMb9qdXa479MxNckq881xZpSTZg8hd7Ckm4U/B7ETx4 X-Gm-Gg: AR+sD10Vk7aoL/4wPL/qHgnF2WsJfu63xaZGDCvzvNjQSFo7jatePViRiFA4idymJSj 7uZIxNogA+9ePmNWksBS1mz55PUFrJROHpcoQJlWQNmO6Ea+KK70hn/PvrfXKvhmm7HHuVjHIQt GBzrCZk9MJWZh132ARP/A5D7uTJ9BYEooIiO1akbEOVCaRiDuscAK3wD1hUvVYAyu6CxyelphL1 Si2jImhyX/CCwEYwmEd/UX4z+9k68dH0M7uyAPfWfgohk5spvdZtV8vpmGX0mknX913VUlanMri ygjdH1U6cCgpYzRQ+LE3sOzhw9g+u5ZTzYArdH0ciyKsCVocJ/Sb70Bzya2JyFNBCxuv7fgSXsD YcD3wlq5u1D4xrE/Jezdt+IU049r1xf9goj0X7rTojR2tkhI639zhmkH4b/h+EE+58CTFOOLvLx QhGHhF8ebkAtcjN1hMN0ZYkwdEHc7G/nYc9p4+LYj7XyumKm47QM9pUlA= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:288d:b0:38f:26c7:165e with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-39261ff3945mr21885086a91.9.1786304508695; Sun, 09 Aug 2026 12:41:48 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <6a78d7fc.4987c784.356268.046f@mx.google.com> Date: Sun, 09 Aug 2026 12:41:48 -0700 (PDT) From: Ciro Iriarte To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com Subject: [RFC] Centralized management for standalone PBS file clients X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.311 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain DMARC_PASS -0.1 DMARC pass policy FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider KAM_ASCII_DIVIDERS 0.8 Email that uses ascii formatting dividers and possible spam tricks RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: HPAOW5SV5YYIT64DBXCZ6M6JMFPX3IAT X-Message-ID-Hash: HPAOW5SV5YYIT64DBXCZ6M6JMFPX3IAT X-MailFrom: cyruspy@gmail.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: Hi all, This is a proposal for discussion (not a patch). Currently proxmox-backup-client is a stateless, outbound-only CLI, and PBS operates purely as a passive storage endpoint. For non-PVE / standalone Linux hosts, backups must be scheduled locally per-host (e.g. cron or systemd timers). This creates operational gaps: - No central control or unified view of backup schedules across hosts. - No central task log visibility for non-PVE client backups. - No proactive alerting when a host fails to run an expected backup (a crashed host or a dead timer produces no signal at all). Proposed shared component: client agent --------------------------------------- Both options below rely on a small, optional agent service running on target Linux hosts. The agent authenticates an incoming request from a central manager and invokes proxmox-backup-client locally. The existing CLI remains the execution engine; the agent only dispatches jobs and reports status and logs back to the manager. Option A: manager integrated into PBS / PDM ------------------------------------------- Extend PBS (or PDM) to act as the central manager. - PBS/PDM stores job objects for standalone clients (target host, source paths, schedule, retention, namespace, notifications). - PBS/PDM triggers jobs on remote agents and ingests results. - Task results and logs surface via the existing PBS/PDM API and UI. Option B: separate standalone manager ------------------------------------- Keep the PBS/PDM codebase unchanged and build a separate manager. - Uses the identical client agent from Option A on target hosts. - Handles scheduling, central log aggregation (troubleshooting), and compliance (were the last tasks successful / did every host meet its SLA window). - Interacts with PBS strictly via existing public APIs. The architectural decision is strictly where the manager lives (PBS/PDM integration vs. a separate product); the client agent is identical in both. Questions for the list ---------------------- 1. Is central scheduling for standalone clients desirable inside PBS/PDM (Option A), or is a separate manager preferred (Option B)? 2. Does an optional lightweight client agent align with Proxmox's architectural vision for standalone host backups? 3. Are there existing design initiatives or preferred patterns for remote execution in the ecosystem this should align with? Happy to prototype whichever direction the maintainers consider viable. Thanks, Ciro Iriarte