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 2B7E6B8CF5 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:23:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 009EFBAAD for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:22:53 +0100 (CET) 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 ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:22:52 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D213948905 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:22:51 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 16:22:51 +0100 (CET) From: Christian Ebner To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Message-ID: <1818089502.10931.1710170571116@webmail.proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <1710164125.yzk79dmpim.astroid@yuna.none> References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240305092703.126906-15-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1710164125.yzk79dmpim.astroid@yuna.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.6-Rev59 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.039 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC v2 proxmox-backup 14/36] client: backup: split payload to dedicated stream 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: Mon, 11 Mar 2024 15:23:23 -0000 > On 11.03.2024 15:57 CET Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler wrote: >=20 > this parameter position is a bit arbitrary - and the later additions in > this series don't really make it better.. maybe we could use this as an > opportunity for some house keeping, thinking about what should go into > the `options`, and whether some of the rest could be meaningfully > grouped? >=20 Yes, will do that, I noticed that also `cargo clippy` is not happy with this. > > + > > + let backup_stream_payload =3D payload_rx.map(|rx| Self { >=20 > nit: IMHO this is a `backup_payload_stream` (a stream of payload(s)), > not a `backup_stream_payload` (the payload of a backup stream) >=20 stems from simply postfixing all the duplicate instances for the split archive case. But agreed, it is better called `backup_payload_stream`. >=20 > *bikeshed mode on* - .pld is rather opaque from a user's perspective, > maybe .data would be a more human readable counterpart to .meta ? >=20 Dietmar mentioned off list that he is not happy with the postfix to the .pxar archive file name, so we might introduce a dedicated file ending for these kind of archives (as only the metadata archive even follows the pxar file format, the payload archive is just a concatenation of payloads which will be separated by the payload header with the next version of the patch series for consistency checks).