From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7559D1FF13A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:22:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 45F8A103C6; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:22:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:22:08 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/2] fix #6373: HTTP level reader heartbeat for proxy connection keepalive To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260129122700.448448-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260129122700.448448-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1776240724.q4ii7heihr.astroid@yuna.none> <76864022-8da1-40d4-82e3-be681a6f1c2e@proxmox.com> <1776250781.4vefy5jjsj.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <1776250781.4vefy5jjsj.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1776252051997 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.069 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: QZ5ICSMGZLURBKJYZS2CULZKWEGX5MEM X-Message-ID-Hash: QZ5ICSMGZLURBKJYZS2CULZKWEGX5MEM X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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 4/15/26 12:59 PM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > On April 15, 2026 10:45 am, Christian Ebner wrote: >> On 4/15/26 10:32 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >>> On January 29, 2026 1:26 pm, Christian Ebner wrote: >>>> Backup readers can have long periods of idle connections, e.g. if a >>>> backup snapshot has been mounted and all relevant chunks are locally >>>> cached or a backup session with previous metadata archive not needing >>>> to fetch new contents while the backup is ongoing. >>>> >>>> Proxies like e.g. HAProxy might however close idle connections for >>>> better resource handling [0,1], even multiplexed HTTP/2 connections as >>>> are being used for the Proxmox Backup Sever backup/reader protocol. >>>> >>>> This mainly affects the backup reader, while the backup writer will >>>> do indexing and chunk uploads anyways. >>> >>> but if the storage is slow, there might not be chunk traffic for a few >>> seconds as well? >> So you suggest to implement the same for the backup writer as well? > > I am wondering whether it wouldn't make sense (though I guess 5s is > quite agressive anyway, and higher idle timeouts make it unlikely to > trigger in practice?) Yes, I think for the writer this is way less relevant. Only the super slow storage case where the chunk is uploaded quickly, but then the storage takes ages to write it. OTOH the heartbeat does not interfere much with the current request logic, and is guarded behind the environment variable. So this would be enabled under very specific conditions anyways? After all it is mostly only a way out if one has no control over the proxy to increase the timeout values there?