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 3391B90539 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1670F5D29 for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:37 +0100 (CET) Received: from mail.corep.it (mail.corep.it [93.186.252.128]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:35 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <37dc5e1b-44d2-70d3-803f-d2d88b10bdcf@corep.it> Date: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 08:51:35 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 To: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <7ab47597-6ed5-f577-49b5-c011b67ad1a8@corep.it> <37b93c67-fbae-3736-26a2-9ff3af7dc4fd@corep.it> From: dea In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.328 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 NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) 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] Possible problem on NFS storage with release 2-3-3 (??) 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: Wed, 15 Mar 2023 07:51:37 -0000 Hi Thomas, what I am about to say is not related to the problem, but it has a sense that connects it. If it were possible during the garbage collect function to introduce "checkpoints" so that in the case of a reboot or upgrade a days' worth of work is not thrown away, it would really be a great step forward. Now I use about 300 Tbytes of hybrid storage (HDD with acceleration SSD) and about 25 Tbytes of full SSD and the garbage collect function is really onerous on the hybrid storage. If I were to increase the capacity to 1 Pbyte and more, it would be really difficult to manage. Thanks Luca