From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <l.wagner@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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 228B0D4DB
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:38:01 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 030D51D8B5
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:38:01 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:38:00 +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 2CA30485C8
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:38:00 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <d77ab4b4-cb30-4d8a-a1f9-e4970a932034@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 10:37:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
To: Hannes Laimer <h.laimer@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230915065457.352953-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
 <20230915065457.352953-6-h.laimer@proxmox.com>
 <9d12f5a9-9700-4485-a34f-38769d35452c@proxmox.com>
 <7b74879b-acc5-4c58-aed0-35abfa79a72b@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
In-Reply-To: <7b74879b-acc5-4c58-aed0-35abfa79a72b@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.031 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 05/23] api2: admin: add
 (un)mount endpoint for removable datastores
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: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 08:38:01 -0000



On 9/21/23 09:50, Hannes Laimer wrote:
> On 9/19/23 15:38, Lukas Wagner wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 9/15/23 08:54, Hannes Laimer wrote:
>>> +pub fn do_mount_device(
>>> +        datastore.set_maintenance_mode(None);
>>
>> I think this overrides existing maintenance modes... e.g. if a datastore
>> is 'read-only', unmounted and mounted again, then the 'read-only' mode 
>> will be gone.
>>
> Yes, it does. Why should it not? The only situation where that could be
> a problem is if a removable datastore should not be written to at all,
> so it would either be unplugged or ro. But in this case, why setup sync
> jos or backups to a datastore that should not be written to in the first
> place?
> 

I agree that there might be limited number of use cases where this is 
actually a problem. That being said, from a user's perspective I would 
find this behavior quite surprising if I were to stumble across it. I 
guess that's due to the fact that it is not really apparent that 'not 
mounted' is also handled as a maintenance mode, that replaces others.

If you keep this behavior as is, it should at least be documented in the 
admin guide.

-- 
- Lukas