public inbox for pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
To: "Christian Ebner" <c.ebner@proxmox.com>,
	"Proxmox Backup Server development discussion"
	<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
	"Fabian Grünbichler" <f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com>
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] fix #5982: garbage collection: check atime updates are honored
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2025 14:31:44 +0100	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <0a345432-cb61-43d3-af9c-6561f8798574@proxmox.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <0e1975cc-d111-4556-bb26-340604939a55@proxmox.com>

Am 18.02.25 um 13:39 schrieb Christian Ebner:
> On 2/18/25 12:53, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> +1; one (additional) option _might_  be to trigger suck a check on
>> datastore creation, e.g. create the all-zero chunk and then do that
>> test. As of now that probably would not win us much, but if we make
>> the 24h-wait opt-in then users would be warned early enough, or we
>> could even auto-set that option in such a case.
> 
> Only checking the atime update check on datastore creation is not enough 
> I think, as the backing filesystem might get remounted with changed 
> mount parameters? Or do you mean to *also* check on datastore creation 
> already to early on detect issues? Although, in my testing even with 
> `noatime` the atime update seems to be honored by the way the garbage 
> collection performs the time updates (further details see below).

yes, I meant doing that additionally to checking on GC.

> Anyways, creating the all-zero chunk and use that for the check sounds 
> like a good optimization to me, as that allows to avoid conditional 
> checking in the phase 1 of garbage collection. However, at the cost of 
> having to make sure that it is never cleaned up by phase 2...

I saw your second reply already but even without that in mind it would
be IMO fine to only use the all-zero chunk for the on-create check, as
I would not see it as a big problem if it then gets pruned during
GC, if the latter would use an actually existing chunk. But no hard
feelings here at all either way.

> Regarding the 24 hour waiting period, as mentioned above I noted that 
> atime updates are honored even if I set the `noatime` for an ext4 or 
> `atime=off` on zfs.
> Seems like the utimensat() bypasses this directly, as it calls into 
> vfs_utimes() [0], which sets this to be an explicit time update, 
> followed by the notify_change() [1], which then calls the setattr() of 
> the corresponding filesystem [2] via the given inode.
> This seems to bypass the atime_needs_update() [3], only called by 
> touch_atime(). The atime_needs_update() also checks the 
> relatime_needs_update() [4].
> 
> Although not conclusive (yet).
> 

Yeah, that would support making this opt-in. FWIW, we could maybe "sell"
this as sort of feature by not just transforming it into a boolean
"24h-wait period <true|false>" option but rather a more generic
"wait-period <X hours>" option that defaults to 0 hours (or maybe a
few minutes if we want to support minute granularity). Not sure if there
are enough (real world) use cases to warrant this, so mostly mentioned
for the sake of completeness.


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel


  parent reply	other threads:[~2025-02-18 13:32 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2025-02-17 13:12 [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox proxmox-backup 0/2] fix #5892: check atime update is honored Christian Ebner
2025-02-17 13:12 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 1/2] pbs api types: Add check garbage collection atime updates flag Christian Ebner
2025-02-17 13:12 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] fix #5982: garbage collection: check atime updates are honored Christian Ebner
2025-02-17 15:36   ` Fabian Grünbichler
2025-02-17 15:57     ` Christian Ebner
2025-02-18 11:53     ` Thomas Lamprecht
2025-02-18 12:39       ` Christian Ebner
2025-02-18 13:17         ` Christian Ebner
2025-02-18 13:31         ` Thomas Lamprecht [this message]
2025-02-18 13:38           ` Christian Ebner
2025-02-19 16:54 ` [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox proxmox-backup 0/2] fix #5892: check atime update is honored Christian Ebner

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=0a345432-cb61-43d3-af9c-6561f8798574@proxmox.com \
    --to=t.lamprecht@proxmox.com \
    --cc=c.ebner@proxmox.com \
    --cc=f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com \
    --cc=pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox
Service provided by Proxmox Server Solutions GmbH | Privacy | Legal