From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 607631FF13C for ; Thu, 05 Mar 2026 10:21:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D709F1F47D; Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:22:40 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <8ed09d40-9fe7-4234-955b-4346e6c09fb9@proxmox.com> Date: Thu, 5 Mar 2026 10:22:37 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Subject: Re: applied: [PATCH proxmox-backup] chunk store: s3: mute warning on overwrite empty chunk in local cache To: =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20260304103600.263896-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <177270064027.249592.16258482045291452957.b4-ty@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner In-Reply-To: <177270064027.249592.16258482045291452957.b4-ty@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772702530866 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -1.000 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.018 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.703 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 1.386 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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: 3YD5QMGXDU6CKW4UFPHCMS6VOH44POJ4 X-Message-ID-Hash: 3YD5QMGXDU6CKW4UFPHCMS6VOH44POJ4 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: On 3/5/26 9:51 AM, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: > > On Wed, 04 Mar 2026 11:36:00 +0100, Christian Ebner wrote: >> For regular datastores overwriting chunks which have 0 size is >> unexpected and cannot happen under regular operation. For datastores >> backed by an S3 object storage, this is however expected as regular >> operation if the cache reaches its capacity, since chunks get evicted >> from the cache by leaving an empty file as chunk marker behind. >> >> While the warning is benign, it causes false alerts in the task logs. >> Therefore, silence the warning if the chunk insert overwriting the >> file happens via the local datastore cache. >> >> [...] > > Applied, thanks! > > Might be something to consider when refactoring the whole datastore/chunkstore > interaction with a proper locked wrapper and integrating the backend - this > could then be derived from the backend? Yes, although if we do keep the working principle for the cache as is, a chunk insert overwriting an empty file will be regular operation, independent on the actual chunk store backend. Backend implementation and local cache should not be intertwined to much I think? We might reuse this for other backend implementations?