From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
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 7E37261948
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 11:31:11 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7BD2D96BB
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 11:31:11 +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))
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 0ECCE96AE
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 11:31:11 +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 CF06243394
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Sep 2020 11:31:10 +0200 (CEST)
To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20200903141705.6344-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com>
 <711517342.706.1599147653676@webmail.proxmox.com>
 <1629119323.707.1599148283648@webmail.proxmox.com>
From: Stefan Reiter <s.reiter@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <ba5b71bf-7d7f-84eb-5d81-0658c3538b0a@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 2020 11:31:10 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.9.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1629119323.707.1599148283648@webmail.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 1.300 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            -2.69 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 0/4] Improve corrupt chunk handling
X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, 
 <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Sep 2020 09:31:11 -0000

On 9/3/20 5:51 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> 
>> On 09/03/2020 5:40 PM Dietmar Maurer <dietmar@proxmox.com> wrote:
>>
>>   
>>> Verify will now rename chunks it detects as corrupted, so future backups will be
>>> forced to write them. The next GC will then clean these ".bad" files up, since
>>> it has to scan each chunk directory anyway.
>>
>> That sounds quite dangerous to me. What about transient storage errors?
> 
> Maybe I miss-read your path. When do you remove those .bad files exactly? Only when
> the client uploaded a good chunk already?
> 

Not currently, but I will make it so GC checks for a new good chunk 
before deleting the .bad one in v2.