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 3C5101FF141 for ; Tue, 05 May 2026 16:06:54 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 721174D97; Tue, 5 May 2026 16:06:53 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <1ae75d38-6a7e-4778-adda-f910a3faa2c6@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 5 May 2026 16:06:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: [RFC proxmox{,-backup} 00/13] gc maintenance mode and full datastore protection To: Robert Obkircher , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260430150607.330413-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <20260430150607.330413-1-r.obkircher@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1777989903194 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.070 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: MAMKS63ZMJREZ3Z6OVNWMM3CXX6FMPUC X-Message-ID-Hash: MAMKS63ZMJREZ3Z6OVNWMM3CXX6FMPUC X-MailFrom: c.ebner@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: Thanks for the patches, look good to me overall. It would however be nice to include some benchmarks with and without the checks. Further, IMO it does not make sense to allow setting these on datastores backed by S3, it should not interfere with the local datastore cache. On 4/30/26 5:05 PM, Robert Obkircher wrote: > Add a maintenance mode that only allows garbage collection, and avoid > running out of space by checking how much is available before writes. > > I mostly wanted to ask if it really makes sense to add the maintenance > mode. It could also just be treated as a special case where the entire > space is reserved. Yes, IMO it does as this is somewhat orthogonal to what the reserved space check does, at least from the users perspective. By setting the maintenance mode you can effectively block any new backup content, without the need to adapt reserved size ecc. vs. backups which might fail mid flight. > I'm also not super happy with the "check before writes" approach but I > couldn't come up with a better apporach either. Let me know if you have > other ideas.