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 2CEBC69D78 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:12:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2ACD469DE for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:12:04 +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 id B428F69D3 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:12:03 +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 87BE544154 for ; Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:12:03 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <3ef093e4-200a-efa0-2666-63fad58b0d67@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 18:12:02 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Stefan Sterz , Wolfgang Bumiller Cc: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20220309135031.1995207-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <717c8999-d3f8-a01b-a8f5-da0f5960d23f@proxmox.com> <20220314093617.n2mc2jv4k6ntzroo@wobu-vie.proxmox.com> <738d037f-ed3c-db76-287f-5b6d37a3b7f3@proxmox.com> <5ca8cb1b-f677-67d0-a4c5-052de38472b2@proxmox.com> <915cbd4b-a195-5714-501c-41932b2c2558@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <915cbd4b-a195-5714-501c-41932b2c2558@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.058 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup] fix #3336: api: remove backup group if the last snapshot is removed 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, 14 Mar 2022 17:12:04 -0000 On 14.03.22 16:19, Stefan Sterz wrote: > agreed, would you mind if i open a bug for overhauling the locking > mechanism and started work on that? i looked a bit into your proposed that's fine. > solution regarding tmpfs afaict there is no per directory inode limit, > only an overall limit corresponding to halve the physical memory > pages. we could use a completely flat structure based on either > encoded or hashed canonical paths. im assuming thats pretty close to > what you had in mind? Yeah, I'd use proxmox_sys::systemd::escape_unit for flattening lock paths and ship a systemd .mount unit file setting up a separate tmpfs in a place like /run/proxmox-backup/locks with a relatively high inode count (size can/should? be relatively low)