From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BF71C1FF14F for ; Fri, 08 May 2026 15:14:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B8A8F18BBD; Fri, 8 May 2026 15:14:44 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <9da0ab1f-85a1-40f2-a478-60cacddf8bdc@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 8 May 2026 15:14:39 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup 01/10] task tracking: count Reclaim datastore operations as writes To: Christian Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260430150607.330413-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> <20260430150607.330413-5-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-AT From: Robert Obkircher In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1778245970761 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.056 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 Message-ID-Hash: PBFI7LT5VIZGIUTKCTCFV342XFPDWVAE X-Message-ID-Hash: PBFI7LT5VIZGIUTKCTCFV342XFPDWVAE X-MailFrom: r.obkircher@proxmox.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: On 05.05.26 15:47, Christian Ebner wrote: > one question regarding the accounting > > On 4/30/26 5:04 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: >> This ensures that changing a Write to a Reclaim does not break forward >> compatibility when older versions read the counters. >> >> Ideally, Write operations would also be tracked separately to display >> them as conflicts of the GarbageCollection maintenance mode, but an >> extra field would lead to parse errors in older versions which are not >> always propagated (for example when cloning a Datastore) and would >> thus result in incorrect values. > > The following test works without issues: > > #[test] > fn test_active_operation_parsing() { >     let raw_str = > "[{\"pid\":111,\"starttime\":111,\"active_operations\":{\"read\":1,\"write\":3,\"reclaim\":2}}]"; >     > assert!(serde_json::from_str::>(&raw_str).is_ok()); > } > > So reclaim operations could be accounted for by writes and an > optional reclaim for the time being (ignored and not written by > older versions), allowing to switch in the future, once all versions > are expected to handle it directly. Or am I missing something here?  I could have sworn that I ran into parse errors at some point. Maybe I had a modified version running without realizing it. But yeah, it looks like we can just add the new field with a default attribute and let the older versions remove it on every update. > [..]