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 38968BA66D for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:29:04 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 12A2BCBB9 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:28:34 +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 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:28:33 +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 4BC81469C5 for ; Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:28:33 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 10:28:32 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Content-Language: en-US, de-DE From: Christian Ebner To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=C3=BCnbichler?= Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20240305092703.126906-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20240305092703.126906-32-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <1710245702.bw6ryqnajc.astroid@yuna.none> <3c698a3b-1bc9-4c90-b302-e6f3a3f59f6f@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <3c698a3b-1bc9-4c90-b302-e6f3a3f59f6f@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.037 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [RFC v2 proxmox-backup 31/36] specs: add backup detection mode specification 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: Wed, 20 Mar 2024 09:29:04 -0000 On 3/12/24 13:31, Christian Ebner wrote: > On 3/12/24 13:17, Fabian Grünbichler wrote: >> I already had this question in the other patch that uses this, but do we >> need this kind of control? wouldn't a third value MetadataNoReuse (name >> tbd ;)) to force a "cut" be enough (e.g., if I am either afraid that the >> re-use might have bugs, or I want to reset the re-use / chunk >> boundaries)? > > No, this is not strictly necessary if we do not want to limit the > metadata change detection to specific archives for a multi-archive > backup. Should I remove this? I just considered this a nice to have. > Reduced this to the 2 enum variants for now: BackupDetectionMode::Data BackupDetectionMode::Metadata Maybe it makes sense to go in the other direction here and introduce an additional flag `--split-archive` or the like, and make this a requirement for setting the `--change-detection-mode` flag? This would logically separate the splitting of the archive in metadata and payload streams during backup creation and decouple it from the actual change detection.