From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@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 5A16E92430 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:20:16 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 41F751CF6E for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:20:16 +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 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:20:15 +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 BE60242AA9; Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:20:14 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <d18c1576-0eba-ee9c-281b-9b7e23ce1c89@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 09:20:14 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:111.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/111.0 Content-Language: de-AT, en-GB To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, dea <dea@corep.it> References: <7ab47597-6ed5-f577-49b5-c011b67ad1a8@corep.it> <37b93c67-fbae-3736-26a2-9ff3af7dc4fd@corep.it> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <37b93c67-fbae-3736-26a2-9ff3af7dc4fd@corep.it> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.049 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 -0.001 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] Possible problem on NFS storage with release 2-3-3 (??) 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: Tue, 14 Mar 2023 08:20:16 -0000 Hi, Am 09/03/2023 um 13:38 schrieb dea: > Downgrade via dpkg from 2.3-3 to 2.3-2 (and change kernel to 6.1) and works very fast, as usually. > what packages where in the "bad" update set? Can you please check /var/log/apt/history.log ? > I don't know if the problem is in the kernel or in the 2.3-3 package, but this way it works as it should. > Hmm, we moved proxmox-backup-server version 2.3.3-1 to no-subscription over a month ago (2023-02-10) and had not seen any wide-spreading reports of general problems introduced by that version. So if a new kernel was pulled in too it could be indeed related to that. The used Hardware (CPU, NIC, ...) would be good to know too, maybe it's a regression specific to some component of your system. > The system is in production, so I can't do too many tests and reboots... > > I was exasperated by the slowness, so I made two changes at once (I know that diagnostically it's the worst solution, but not having time or a way to give too much disruption I couldn't do one test at a time). It'd be really great if you could find some time to test 2.3.3-1 again while keeping the newer 6.1 kernel booted. Downgrading that back again shouldn't require that much time (at least less than switching kernel), and would help to tell if PBS itself can be excluded from the regression hunt. - thomas