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 5041763396 for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:47:19 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3FB9A2A18B for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:47:19 +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 958ED2A17D for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:47:18 +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 575D6455BF for ; Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:47:18 +0100 (CET) To: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20201221135611.14456-1-s.reiter@proxmox.com> <1412279965.2136.1608565017552@webmail.proxmox.com> <5c0cbe82-1cd1-aeae-6363-097ca054506f@proxmox.com> <1481561822.2144.1608568808408@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Stefan Reiter Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2020 09:47:17 +0100 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: <1481561822.2144.1608568808408@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 0.577 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 -1.233 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 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [proxmox.com] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC 0/2] backup client: implement some HTTP timeouts 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, 22 Dec 2020 08:47:19 -0000 On 12/21/20 5:40 PM, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >> Came up during discussion of this report: >> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/qmp-command-backup-failed-got-timeout.77749/#post-357700 >> >> where high load on the server (from too many verification tasks, which >> is a different problem) causes VM clients to hang for unreasonable >> amounts of time. > > But with a 20s timeout, the backup would fail quit fast - this is probably also not what the user wants? > This is only on the initial UPGRADE request, once that is established nothing is changed. If that takes longer than 20s (or 30, 40, as stated the exact number was more of a guess on my part) the server is probably under enough load that another backup client isn't going to help.