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 6281A96B61 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:33:28 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 16EF522B07 for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:33:28 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:33:26 +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 9D9C34653F for ; Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:33:26 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 13:33:24 +0100 From: Christoph Heiss To: Thomas Lamprecht Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion Message-ID: <20230126123324.ij255vssxiss5cb7@maui.proxmox.com> References: <20230125121902.404950-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20230125121902.404950-2-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <51411bea-d3a3-5352-e85f-5ac355e86e3f@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <51411bea-d3a3-5352-e85f-5ac355e86e3f@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 2.387 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI -5 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, high 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] [RFC PATCH v2 proxmox-backup 1/7] api2: Introduce server features discovery mechanism 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: Thu, 26 Jan 2023 12:33:28 -0000 Thanks for taking a look a this! On Wed, Jan 25, 2023 at 04:56:26PM +0100, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 25/01/2023 um 13:18 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > [..] > > you could also just check the version? that's already there, no need for > adding extra complexity. > > tbh, I'd be fine without any such check, as new *client* needing newer > server is fine; one just does need to ensure that old clients still work > with new server. I thought about that too at first - seemed a bit "hacky" too me, but if it is also fine by you, I will happily drop this patch and just check the server version. Will do a v3 soon with that incorporated, barring other feedback on that matter. I'm very happy about better proposals for any of this stuff, since this grew considerably from what I initally thought should be a relatively simple fix. > > If you want, you could catch the parameter exception in the PVE call > site, either adding a hint about "new server required" or falling back > there (albeit I'm not so liking that). > > After all immediate protection of backups is only relevant for manual > trigerring that, not for the scheduled backup jobs, so it won't affect > existing PVE jobs anyway.