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 D0024628EF
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:04:31 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B657E1AB4F
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:04:01 +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 526201AB44
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:04:01 +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 140C645A2D
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:04:01 +0200 (CEST)
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
 Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
References: <20200930141601.27233-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <20200930141601.27233-2-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <1036562042.805.1601477796095@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <119c6540-baf6-e391-75d7-1783b61cab46@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 17:04:00 +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: <1036562042.805.1601477796095@webmail.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 -0.161 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
Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 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 15:04:31 -0000

On 30.09.20 16:56, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> A simpler approach would we to disable chunk reuse if not verified
> within the last 7 days (at start of the backup).
>=20

Does not works with dirty-bitmap backups, and defeats the purpose of incr=
emental
backups in general.

This is a simple loop over a list with a path .exists, do not really see =
how
that is simpler..