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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4906861401 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:19:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2EC39113A5 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:18:58 +0200 (CEST) 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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id EC47511398 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:18:56 +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 B572D45E57 for ; Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:18:56 +0200 (CEST) To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Hannes Laimer References: <20201020091012.82723-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 19:18:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:82.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/82.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20201020091012.82723-1-h.laimer@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 -0.128 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 -0.001 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] [PATCH v4 proxmox-backup 00/10] add job based verify scheduling 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: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 17:19:28 -0000 On 20.10.20 11:10, Hannes Laimer wrote: > Replaces the first implementation of scheduled verification with a new > job-based version with additional options that may be specified through= > the web ui. >=20 > Options available for verification jobs: > * schedule when to run the job > * set datastore on which the job should run > * set a number of days after which a verification becomes "outdated" > empty =3D> verifications are valid forever > * specify if already successfuly verified snapshots should be verified= > again even if they're not outdated(failed ones will always be done)= >=20 > v4: > * squashed patches > * rebased > * no build-breaking patch > * correct old config files in postinst much nicer split and organization of the patch series and each commit bui= lds and tests successfully, great! How those schedules and datastore stuff is organized in the GUI is still = open, but that should not be a blocker for this series, can be done afterwards = - Dominik and I had already some discussion about this. @Dominik, would be good if we could hatch a more specific plan for this t= omorrow. There are two things which I find a bit "weird" or not ideal with the ver= ification schedule settings. 1. Why a "Verify Job ID" (possibly also s/Verify/Verification/)? The user already has the comment fields for notes, and forcing them to= give each job a name makes no sense, IMO. I know that an ID is required for= working with each schedule, but that could be internal and automatically deriv= ed. Either by choosing some random UUID assigned on add, similar to what w= e do in PVE for backup jobs, or, alternatively join all relevant settings (dat= astore id, schedule, days valid, ignore verified) and use that as ID (e.g., encod= ed or md5sum'd) - this could even help to avoid that user specify the exact = same job multiple times. However, the ID has to go IMO, this is not something a user will often= specify when interfacing with the PBS, like the Datstore id is, but a schedule= which one normally does not names. (naming is not only hard for Devs, it's also = hard for users) 2. documentation is missing 3. there was something besides that, but it's late and I'm really have to= stop working for today ^^ Anyway, it seems to work (from a few quick tests), I'd like to have a qui= ck talk with Dominik tomorrow (mostly about point 1. above) and then I'd apply th= is, UX stuff can then be followed up. thanks!