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))
(No client certificate requested)
by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6474D62771
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:33:29 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5731D19AEA
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:32:59 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[212.186.127.180])
(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 id 3B9C219AE0
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:32:55 +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 02BE645941
for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:32:55 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
<pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
References: <20200930132522.22927-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
<20200930132522.22927-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <102da918-162c-fcf4-f1e7-68b46b63f953@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 15:32:53 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/82.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20200930132522.22927-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL -0.162 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
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)
RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
medium trust
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [environment.rs]
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/5] backup: don't validate
chunk existance if base was recently verified
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: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 13:33:29 -0000
On 30.09.20 15:25, Stefan Reiter wrote:
> If the base was successfully verified within the last 7 days, we assume=
> that it is okay and all chunks exist, so we don't have to check.
>=20
> Signed-off-by: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
> ---
> src/api2/backup/environment.rs | 29 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 28 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>=20
> diff --git a/src/api2/backup/environment.rs b/src/api2/backup/environme=
nt.rs
> index d515bf30..be06d1dc 100644
> --- a/src/api2/backup/environment.rs
> +++ b/src/api2/backup/environment.rs
> @@ -457,6 +457,31 @@ impl BackupEnvironment {
> Ok(())
> }
> =20
> + fn last_backup_has_recent_verify(&self) -> Result<bool, Error> {
> + match &self.last_backup {
> + Some(last_backup) =3D> {
> + let last_dir =3D &last_backup.backup_dir;
> + let (manifest, _) =3D self.datastore.load_manifest(las=
t_dir)?;
> + let verify =3D manifest.unprotected["verify_state"].cl=
one();
> + match serde_json::from_value::<Option<SnapshotVerifySt=
ate>>(verify) {
> + Ok(verify) =3D> match verify {
> + Some(verify) =3D> {
> + let cutoff =3D unsafe { libc::time(std::pt=
r::null_mut()) };
> + let cutoff =3D cutoff - 60*60*24*7; // one=
week back
Why unsafe and why not our `proxmox::tools::time::epoch_i64()` ?
on another note: we should probably add some helper for getting the
verify state
> + Ok(verify.state =3D=3D VerifyState::Ok && =
verify.upid.starttime > cutoff)
> + },
> + None =3D> Ok(false)
> + },
> + Err(err) =3D> {
> + self.worker.warn(format!("error parsing base v=
erification state : '{}'", err));
> + Ok(false)
> + }
> + }
> + },
> + None =3D> Ok(false)
> + }
> + }
> +
> /// Ensure all chunks referenced in this backup actually exist.
> /// Only call *after* all writers have been closed, to avoid race =
with GC.
> /// In case of error, mark the previous backup as 'verify failed'.=
> @@ -534,7 +559,9 @@ impl BackupEnvironment {
> }
> }
> =20
> - self.verify_chunk_existance(&state.known_chunks)?;
> + if !self.last_backup_has_recent_verify()? {
> + self.verify_chunk_existance(&state.known_chunks)?;
> + }
> =20
> // marks the backup as successful
> state.finished =3D true;
>=20