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 4A4376FF58 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:29:28 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 399C8EADA for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:28:58 +0200 (CEST) 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 BC41CEACE for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:28:57 +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 45F5D444A9 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:28:57 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:28:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:92.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/92.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak , Hannes Laimer References: <20210830111505.38694-1-h.laimer@proxmox.com> <0fc5963d-0286-0982-349f-8081037cfadb@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.834 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 -1.029 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH v2 proxmox-backup 00/15] (partially)close #3156: Add support for removable datastores 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: Thu, 02 Sep 2021 06:29:28 -0000 On 02.09.21 08:18, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 9/2/21 08:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 01.09.21 16:48, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> >>> also,=C2=A0would=C2=A0it=C2=A0not=C2=A0make=C2=A0sense=C2=A0to=C2=A0h= ave >>> multiple=C2=A0uuids=C2=A0per=C2=A0datastore=C2=A0instead=C2=A0of=C2=A0= only=C2=A0one? >>> >>> i=C2=A0guess=C2=A0most=C2=A0users=C2=A0of=C2=A0this=C2=A0will=C2=A0wa= nt=C2=A0to=C2=A0have=C2=A0more=C2=A0than >>> one=C2=A0usb=C2=A0devices=C2=A0in=C2=A0rotation,=C2=A0and=C2=A0having= =C2=A0multiple >>> datastores=C2=A0+=C2=A0multiple=C2=A0sync=C2=A0jobs=C2=A0is=C2=A0prob= ably >>> a=C2=A0bit=C2=A0error=C2=A0prone.=C2=A0just=C2=A0allowing=C2=A0multip= le >>> uuids=C2=A0for=C2=A0each=C2=A0datastore=C2=A0would=C2=A0solve=C2=A0th= at >>> problem=C2=A0nicely >> >> Hmm, what would you do if more than one of them are plugged in at the = same time? >> Maybe hard to time on a running system, but possible if I connect a hu= b with >> devices already plugged in, and can definitively happen (by mistake) o= n cold boot. >> >=20 > my guess is that the udev rules do not trigger simultaneously ? udev can coalesce events IIRC, and even if not it would not be guaranteed= to be stable so just relying on that fact would provide a bad UX IMO. > and even if, we could lock the mount/unmount so that this > does not make a problem and we simply mount the first > triggered one see above, IMO weird as the "first" is really not guaranteed to be stable. > but yeah, that was just an idea, not a hard requirement for me IMO this is something we could always add later on without bending backwa= rds, if user really request it.