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 B47FD6086A for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:40:43 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ABF8F1B041 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:40:13 +0100 (CET) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 2D5DF1B033 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:40:13 +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 06C7E46C43; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:40:13 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 08:40:12 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:96.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/96.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20220110112341.2961733-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <9a2434be-52c8-2a91-c7d7-b33ec51d2ad2@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: <9a2434be-52c8-2a91-c7d7-b33ec51d2ad2@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.165 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% 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) 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. [zip.rs] Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] applied: [PATCH proxmox v2] fix #3618: proxmox-async: zip: add conditional EFS flag to zip files 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, 11 Jan 2022 07:40:43 -0000 On 1/11/22 06:49, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 10.01.22 12:23, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> this flag marks the file names as 'UTF-8' encoded if they are valid UTF-8. >> >> By default, encoding of file names in zips are defined as code page 437, >> but we save the filenames as bytes (like in linux fs). >> >> For linux systems this would not be a problem since most tools >> simply use the filenames as bytes, but for the zip utility under >> windows it's important since NTFS uses UTF-16 for file names. >> >> For filenames that are valid UTF-8, they are decoded as UTF-8 everywhere >> correctly (Linux as UTF-8 bytes, Windows as correct UTF-16 sequence) and >> for other filenames with a high bit set, it depends on the OS/Software >> what exactly happens. Some cases below: >> >> * Windows + Built-in/7zip: decoded as CP437 >> * Debian + zip: Bytes taken as-is >> * Debian + 7z: interpreted as Windows1252, decoded as UTF-8 >> >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> changes from v1: >> * moved to proxmox/proxmox-async from proxmox-backup/pbs-tools >> * included bug# in the subject >> * removed two spurious newlines >> >> proxmox-async/src/zip.rs | 22 +++++++++++++++++++--- >> 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> > > applied, thanks! > > Out of interest, did you benchmark if this changes makes an impact in zip-streaming? > I'd think that if, then only for the case with many small files? no i did not benchmark it, but during zip streaming i am here almost always disk limited (accessing random chunks), so i don't think i would have gotten interesting results... ofc i can do some benchmarks with/without the patch this week