From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 BCBBF7B06A for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:35:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B38A91C60E for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:35:58 +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 ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:35:58 +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 03D2943DAB for ; Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:35:58 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <0c2809af-aeea-77e2-aa46-7eccc248d3de@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 7 Jul 2022 10:35:57 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.11.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Wolfgang Bumiller References: <20220705130834.14285-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20220705130834.14285-5-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <20220706113356.y2owpzmxtp4k6loc@casey.proxmox.com> From: Hannes Laimer In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.041 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 02/26] config: make RemovableDeviceConfig savable to config file X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Jul 2022 08:35:58 -0000 Am 06.07.22 um 13:44 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > On 06/07/2022 13:33, Wolfgang Bumiller wrote: >> Do we need this to be a separate config file though? Can this not simply >> be part of the datastore directly? We already "link" them by having to >> define the datastore as `removable`, so can we not just put all the >> values in there? > > IIRC we talked about adding just a "backing-device", or the like (probably > something a bit more explicit w.r.t. to removable), property to existing > datastores, and then pretty much handle them like existing ones. > > That way we can reuse most of existing infrastructure and functionality, > what changes is a different (or no) error on sync, GC, etc. (or repeat skipped > jobs when plugged in) and the "auto-mount + activate in PBS" via udev helper. Yes, we could put all the removable-device data directly into the datastore config. But I think this is a cleaner and more flexible approach, I guess you could argue similarly for why sync and prune jobs have their own configs. What do you mean with we can't reuse infrastructure with the own config approach? Sync/Prune/GC work like on a normal datastore, just with the possibility of failing with "no device present". I think by having a removable-device as its own thing we actually end up reusing more of the already existing API/UI functionality, because having it directly in the datastore config would mean a lot of "manual" parsing of property strings and a "custom" update/add implementation.