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 42BE36FFB3 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:48:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 4015DEDDB for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:48:38 +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 C4097EDCD for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:48:37 +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 94CA743F28 for ; Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:48:37 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 08:48:14 +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: Dietmar Maurer , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <1118236361.1959.1630565157734@webmail.proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <1118236361.1959.1630565157734@webmail.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.832 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] [RFC PATCH proxmox-backup 0/5] add 'protected' setting for snapshots 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 06:48:38 -0000 On 02.09.21 08:45, Dietmar Maurer wrote: >>> * would we want to protect also against manual removal ? or >>> 'remove-vanished' on sync? >> >> Would make sense as long as we allow to "unprotect" it, that's how we do it for guests >> in PVE too. IMO it's weird/unexpected to mark it protected and allow some API mechanisms >> to still remove it. > > I would not consider the protected flag for syncs, i.e: > - do not sync the protected flag itself That I agree (and I did not meant to suggest otherwise). > - remove vanished backups even with protected flag set (to be in sync with source) That I do not agree, if I marked a snapshot explicitly protected, which is a must for the situation to happen with the first point above in mind (no syncing of the protection flag itself) then I'm pretty sure that I want to keep that snapshot no matter what.