From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 193CE1FF139 for ; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:04:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1C82978B0; Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:05:31 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 24 Feb 2026 13:05:23 +0100 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox 3/3] fix #6858: s3-client: retry request on 500 and 503 response status To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20260123145835.625914-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260123145835.625914-4-c.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20260123145835.625914-4-c.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1771934648.hk9upfhes9.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1771934710954 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.047 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 Message-ID-Hash: RN7KMMAIKLD5VWLI3TWQGPRKHF3LC3EI X-Message-ID-Hash: RN7KMMAIKLD5VWLI3TWQGPRKHF3LC3EI X-MailFrom: f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: On January 23, 2026 3:58 pm, Christian Ebner wrote: > Follow the best practices for AWS S3 error handling [0] and perform > retries on requests with http status code 500 or 503 in the response. >=20 > This is done for all requests unconditionally, maximum number of > retires and optional request timeout being honored. >=20 > [0] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/API/ErrorBestPractices.ht= ml >=20 > Fixes: https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3D6858 > Signed-off-by: Christian Ebner > --- > proxmox-s3-client/src/client.rs | 9 ++++++++- > 1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) >=20 > diff --git a/proxmox-s3-client/src/client.rs b/proxmox-s3-client/src/clie= nt.rs > index f3e5eb45..f8cae7da 100644 > --- a/proxmox-s3-client/src/client.rs > +++ b/proxmox-s3-client/src/client.rs > @@ -389,7 +389,14 @@ impl S3Client { > }; > =20 > match response { > - Ok(response) =3D> return Ok(response), > + Ok(response) =3D> match response.status() { > + StatusCode::INTERNAL_SERVER_ERROR | StatusCode::SERV= ICE_UNAVAILABLE =3D> { > + if retry >=3D MAX_S3_HTTP_REQUEST_RETRY - 1 { > + bail!("request failed exceeding retries"); it would be less of a change in behaviour and provide more context to callers if we returned Ok(response) here, like before? > + } > + } > + _ =3D> return Ok(response), > + }, > Err(err) =3D> { > if retry >=3D MAX_S3_HTTP_REQUEST_RETRY - 1 { > return Err(err.into()); > --=20 > 2.47.3 >=20 >=20 >=20 > _______________________________________________ > pbs-devel mailing list > pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel >=20 >=20 >=20