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 0ED966A89C for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 05AFE2A4A4 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:13 +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 A26632A497 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:11 +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 71B2F46E83 for ; Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:11 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <0df19ffc-a685-1605-89ea-2f288aba26da@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 17:42:09 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:99.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/99.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Fabian Ebner References: <20211216121233.162288-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <20211216121233.162288-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20211216121233.162288-3-f.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.193 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - URI_NOVOWEL 0.5 URI hostname has long non-vowel sequence Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 2/2] plugins: allow limiting the number of protected backups per guest X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2022 16:42:13 -0000 On 16.12.21 13:12, Fabian Ebner wrote: > The ability to mark backups as protected broke the implicit assumption > in vzdump that remove=1 and current number of backups being the limit > (i.e. sum of all keep options) will result in a backup being removed. > > Introduce a new storage property 'max-protected-backups' to limit the > number of protected backups per guest. Use 5 as a default value, as it > should cover most use cases, while still not having too big of a > potential overhead in many scenarios. > > For external plugins that do not return the backup subtype in > list_volumes, all protected backups with the same ID will count > towards the limit. > > An alternative would be to count the protected backups when pruning. > While that would avoid the need for a new property, it would break the > current semantics of protected backups being ignored for pruning. It > also would be less flexible, e.g. for PBS, it can make sense to have > both keep-all=1 and a limit for the number of protected snapshots on > the PVE side. > > Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner > --- > PVE/Storage.pm | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ > PVE/Storage/BTRFSPlugin.pm | 3 ++- > PVE/Storage/CIFSPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/CephFSPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/DirPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/GlusterfsPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/NFSPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/PBSPlugin.pm | 1 + > PVE/Storage/Plugin.pm | 7 +++++++ > 9 files changed, 39 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/Storage.pm b/PVE/Storage.pm > index d64019f..0643fad 100755 > --- a/PVE/Storage.pm > +++ b/PVE/Storage.pm > @@ -232,6 +232,30 @@ sub update_volume_attribute { > my $scfg = storage_config($cfg, $storeid); > my $plugin = PVE::Storage::Plugin->lookup($scfg->{type}); > > + my ($vtype, undef, $vmid) = $plugin->parse_volname($volname); > + my $max_protected_backups = $scfg->{'max-protected-backups'} // 5; maybe the default limit should be user privilege dependent? E.g., for root and users with .Allocate on the storage it wouldn't be a problem to have unlimited (or a higher count) as default? I mean, it's naturally a bit odd to differ, but one can argue a lot with auto-magic-convenience ;P > + > + if ( > + $vtype eq 'backup' > + && $vmid > + && $attribute eq 'protected' > + && $value > + && !$plugin->get_volume_attribute($scfg, $storeid, $volname, 'protected') > + && $max_protected_backups > -1 # -1 is unlimited > + ) { > + my $backups = $plugin->list_volumes($storeid, $scfg, $vmid, ['backup']); > + my ($backup_type) = map { $_->{subtype} } grep { $_->{volid} eq $volid } $backups->@*; > + > + my $protected_count = grep { > + $_->{protected} && (!$backup_type || ($_->{subtype} && $_->{subtype} eq $backup_type)) > + } $backups->@*; > + > + if ($max_protected_backups <= $protected_count) { > + die "The number of protected backups per guest is limited to $max_protected_backups ". > + "on storage '$storeid'\n"; > + } > + } > + > return $plugin->update_volume_attribute($scfg, $storeid, $volname, $attribute, $value); > }