From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <dietmar@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 92B487474F for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:34:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 854B52F4EF for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:34:54 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 604A82F4DE for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:34:53 +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 35028466D6 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:34:53 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>, Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> References: <20210601121350.19919-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20210601121350.19919-3-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <5876c1ef-7a68-feb2-36ce-06ef904e3032@proxmox.com> From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> Message-ID: <7f0ee9c3-8b1a-351f-88de-c1a0e6c800a0@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 2 Jun 2021 08:34:52 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5876c1ef-7a68-feb2-36ce-06ef904e3032@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Language: en-US X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.515 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.613 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] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/4] api2/confif/datastore: add create datastore api call in a worker 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, 02 Jun 2021 06:34:54 -0000 On 6/1/21 4:33 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 01.06.21 14:13, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> so that longer running creates (e.g. a slow storage), does not >> run in a timeout and we can follow its creation >> > In PVE we did not treated a changed in return value as breaking change, I mean not > in general, as it is a bit depended on what was returned previously, but we didn't > considered it if there was nothing returned before. > > I'd rather do one either: > * wait for the 2.0 branch and just move over the existing one to always return a task > UPID, least amount of work and as 2.0 is not that far away it would be quite reasonable > IMO > > * just switch now, the manager CLI can be adapted in one go, and the gui can switch too > as both are shipped by the exact same binary package, also OK IMO, but others may be > have objections (?) I prefer above option (just switch now). > > * return the upid as option and add an opt-in switch for the in worker, and if not set > then poll in sync for it being finished, could be removed with 2.0 or just the default > switched > > mostly as I'd like to avoid duplicate entries of endpoints where we plan to use the new > one only anyway (as quite some metadata IO is involved it's effectively the only sensible > one). > >