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 98DFD9100D for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:08:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 76C5B1F1E6 for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:08:11 +0100 (CET) Received: from mout.web.de (mout.web.de [212.227.15.3]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (P-256) server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:08:10 +0100 (CET) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=web.de; s=s29768273; t=1678442890; i=devzero@web.de; bh=VTOIe2rOQDrpAyK56Fy3O4kP3fh/zD0Prv4ztd92sSY=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:Date:Subject:To:References:From:In-Reply-To; b=uBUdsNH+XpwoNXBNsSVFTBShYhu71nOBeSdG0BP/L4bawkjfpb8fv8IAZIZVmyIQv R78WrA5GM02KpYkffugiDgrziKtrHNJ/t1ucLs2QOuHDuK8vUBMmA8EuEHek4UQJXm Kx/UyiJcGQi0vSNa05ca5apxqI3HzOU21vHauUINFyRzmjyBwoErMIQnlnU/HECShp JUDkjm9sgzrbYVhvDcToBkrDVTEaSPiOMek3wTO5UQPOfhr7W7sGhJyYZY92POk9It 9oWRRob1a+UWwkL+Tg1D5dFbI13YwFfCmeGQmuiRbYd5zhqPAMLpbGFbkxWCG9t3D0 DREJ7w8LnYU4A== X-UI-Sender-Class: 814a7b36-bfc1-4dae-8640-3722d8ec6cd6 Received: from [172.20.35.164] ([37.24.118.138]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb006 [213.165.67.108]) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id 1MkVwo-1qH6kf13B0-00mNfm; Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:02:59 +0100 Message-ID: <70ec07ec-9ea9-570a-c9a8-07c88f373bf8@web.de> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 11:02:58 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.8.0 To: Mark Schouten , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: From: Roland In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:IXKueEfRSfPcgUvoT7fF5S+Ig0RnBIdE1LqjS/0t0PgnKfp+Ml+ 1MapHRTIiXcBBxOPb8RsRVjBJEqPnDKlLdLKWRtGUaVHtZGi3Zq4Wpp2SpWzuBKwVmERNhQ Twg2Igd6VhU8yD7ZllvZo+2SI7h7A/Ko7HkVPWo78BPZ6cDKf/GtX174aR3PrbqpWvEjPvr 9YJdeHn0DrN1QzDG4X0pg== X-Spam-Flag: NO UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:TfgMAt/Fvpk=;c9XFJcetyNS6pN0m2ken8x+F9h8 2t9/6RN7eO/+tyMzKARKq2D/s9QlsEX1TnsYS5KDhMYrxTpK5UcleDfQws2DYH/sELLltpiRy c9izkZSUyLs4U1iQn7uKswNnDO8z9baJe68DA3VxBWxduoeze2yq2xWalNoUXxiQL7XVO++ea rpMVBErWJeqifNsFPv8wZXZ1PxEMjoS9A1F9TKAd/vj2V/G0YcoSNL00sysETT0GeFljOfjY4 BKwR8hEkK2X2KKLBRUHi7lae9KlyJUiF+4FaoB7Ma81SRL98Oe/mhUKd6HzAM4aqK7eOKiqb9 S8OKAy88Vu0XG3R4OjAW/SAvFseZ2itjBU8kT1nGufW54+VUqMVlklw/C8CNKlS3z8gLe/qUm lhkxjcYgxV2jqeluwKNTKmBVHmpKy13aJy/7aUnfy42rCEUwJ00PpWvrv/9Rrh3c48DhYSCm2 oDDYAtu9tPAlQ05Aa8KNF354wSRoTZELwDFRPUAB2Z8cl5xEj1slQkOoXXyOWvJ2arPA6hC50 GQs4RjGGrikvV4XNCZEpPDWrISFKRv05ZLmc73DGBABeA/ef5cygvyKQbUDRORsu0Vi+PfjMf ob1V6dEXycn97z5mqR3VzP9jnKlgCkgdGtfRcNf9WIztQ2glr9Vy/BVdsF+uzSGx64Qhnmf6J wviKx1WShijbobTffXEPaoOSG9EjIq09xy2d3BC+sZ9BCRc6314mmJDxKr1ueo5WCiLyZY1Jf zyMAqyv6YEZ7QWFh9h0+9KaEEv+o1Av0XXD3cyvBecS+zAc/mXvluxnFexTRvWd5AKdA8ByGB cWdMQO1+NpujVkgtwuTGZfUit5731UpS5oEtBjat4/f+nR6SH5bw38I+8oDL1sg8gZ6jsrJLR 2eZi/YvhOddlVToi9U0+9voDXJ/6OaWRDSk68e5WfLLZjCB5+yl3RGj2elVBvSoMekE2IHEwB 33q6rq0lyuucW7F0ysBjEfNsrGw= X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.557 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW -0.7 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, low trust RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3 -0.01 Good reputation (+3) RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL -0.01 Mailspike good senders 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] Slow overview of existing backups 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: Fri, 10 Mar 2023 10:08:11 -0000 hello, yes, this is really slow, i even observed timeouts (backup list simply won't appear without any notice) when querying pbs while another node is running a backup > I have the feeling that when you request an overview now, all individual backups are checked, which seems suboptimal. yes, but did you know that zfs metadata caching sucks and this may also be one reason for slowness? see https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/12028 there is improvement on the way: https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/14359 regards roland Am 25.01.23 um 11:26 schrieb Mark Schouten: > Hi, > > Requesting the available backups from a PBS takes quite a long time. > Are there any plans to start implementing caching or an overal > index-file for a datastore? PBS knows when something changed in terms > of backups, and thus when it=E2=80=99s time to update that index. > > I have the feeling that when you request an overview now, all > individual backups are checked, which seems suboptimal. > > Thanks, > > =E2=80=94 > Mark Schouten, CTO > Tuxis B.V. > mark@tuxis.nl / +31 318 200208 > > > > _______________________________________________ > pbs-devel mailing list > pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com > https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel