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 69FAA63C8D for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:57:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 601122276D for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:57:50 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 44CAB22761 for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:57:49 +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 0942E45E4A for ; Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:57:49 +0100 (CET) To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20201028095801.1737-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20201028095801.1737-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2020 18:57:48 +0100 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:83.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/83.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201028095801.1737-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.956 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -2.167 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust 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] [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] server/worker_task: simplify task log writing 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, 28 Oct 2020 17:57:50 -0000 On 28.10.20 10:58, Dominik Csapak wrote: > instead of prerotating 1000 tasks > (which resulted in 2 writes each time an active worker was finished) > simply append finished tasks to the archive (which will be rotated) >=20 > page cache should be good enough so that we can get the task logs fast >=20 > since existing installations might have an 'index' file, we > still have to read tasks from there >=20 > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > maybe there is a better way to get rid of the index file handling? > we cannot really simply append the index file to the archive in > a postinst since the old daemon may still write into it.. >=20 > do we actually care? the users may lose some task information, but > no actual harm should come from lost task logs, since we use > the jobstate for the state handling and scheduling >=20 > we could also simply removing the index code from the iterator > and leave it in 'update_active_workers' so that after the next finished= > active task, we move them from the index file to archive > so we lose them just temporarily....? >=20 We may not care to much, while not ideal, we're still beta and this is no= t a hard error. The idea from above paragraph sounds somewhat OK. In anyway, I'd do a not completely correct deprecation here, i.e., remove= backward compat stuff after 1.0, so those which update often and update r= elatively soon after first stable release do not run into it and the others get som= e tasks missing from the time when it was still beta. Keeping some simple compat until after 1.0.1 or so would be OK for me, bu= t doing it until 2.0 is IMO to cumbersome compared to the drawbacks.