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 C1907D598 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:02:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A37EE1E193 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:02:00 +0200 (CEST) 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, 21 Sep 2023 12:01:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C0A5F485C9 for ; Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:01:59 +0200 (CEST) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2023 12:01:59 +0200 Message-Id: From: "Lukas Wagner" To: "Proxmox Backup Server development discussion" , X-Mailer: aerc 0.14.0 References: <20230808121344.199500-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20230808121344.199500-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.031 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 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] [PATCH proxmox-backup v3 0/6] local sync-jobs 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, 21 Sep 2023 10:02:00 -0000 On Tue Aug 8, 2023 at 2:13 PM CEST, Hannes Laimer wrote: > Add support for local sync. SyncJobs without a remote are considered loca= l, and > use a different logic for pulling. In the course of adding the extra pull= logic, > the pull code was rewritten to basically be source independent. Also cli > completion and the UI was updated to allow Remotes in SyncJobs to be opti= onal. > Gave these patches a quick test on the latest master, here is what I found: - Rate limiting does not seem to be implemented for local sync jobs.=20 Would be a nice addition in the future (e.g. to reduce IO load during s= ync jobs). For the time being, it would be good to structure the sync job U= I in such a way that it is clear that a rate limit has no effect on local sync jobs. - It seems to be possible to create a local sync job that syncs a store t= o itself (same namespace). The job will ultimately fail since we read/wri= te from the same (locked) snapshot. I guess it would be good to catch this earlier on and provide a better error in that case. Also, maybe there should be checks in place when creating the sync job. Might be tricky t= o figure out which variants to allow, since syncing a namespace to anothe= r namespace within the same store might make sense in *some* use cases. Apart from that, everything seems to work as expected, consider this: Tested-by: Lukas Wagner