From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F48C1FF13A for ; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 30BF5E987; Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:00:49 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 15 Apr 2026 13:00:41 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= Subject: Re: [PATCH proxmox-backup 1/2] fix #6373: HTTP level reader heartbeat for proxy connection keepalive To: Christian Ebner , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260129122700.448448-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20260129122700.448448-3-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1776240724.q4ii7heihr.astroid@yuna.none> <76864022-8da1-40d4-82e3-be681a6f1c2e@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <76864022-8da1-40d4-82e3-be681a6f1c2e@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.17.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1776250781.4vefy5jjsj.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: 1776250766904 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.053 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: KA4G2YDMRKD5OXRXQP3U3DYP4QDIGANL X-Message-ID-Hash: KA4G2YDMRKD5OXRXQP3U3DYP4QDIGANL 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 April 15, 2026 10:45 am, Christian Ebner wrote: > On 4/15/26 10:32 AM, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >> On January 29, 2026 1:26 pm, Christian Ebner wrote: >>> Backup readers can have long periods of idle connections, e.g. if a >>> backup snapshot has been mounted and all relevant chunks are locally >>> cached or a backup session with previous metadata archive not needing >>> to fetch new contents while the backup is ongoing. >>> >>> Proxies like e.g. HAProxy might however close idle connections for >>> better resource handling [0,1], even multiplexed HTTP/2 connections as >>> are being used for the Proxmox Backup Sever backup/reader protocol. >>> >>> This mainly affects the backup reader, while the backup writer will >>> do indexing and chunk uploads anyways. >>=20 >> but if the storage is slow, there might not be chunk traffic for a few >> seconds as well? > So you suggest to implement the same for the backup writer as well? I am wondering whether it wouldn't make sense (though I guess 5s is quite agressive anyway, and higher idle timeouts make it unlikely to trigger in practice?)