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 7A1828D17B; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:17:59 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5BA8B2C18F; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:17:59 +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; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:17:58 +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 F0854416B3; Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:17:57 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <15393855-d2d4-8a6f-6916-dd895e7b6cef@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2022 15:17:57 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/107.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak , pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220527082203.1653182-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220527082203.1653182-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220527082203.1653182-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.033 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH common v3 1/1] PBSClient: file_restore_list: add timeout parameter 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: Mon, 07 Nov 2022 14:17:59 -0000 subject is not wrong but worded rather confusingly, as of now it rather implies that this adds a new parameter allowing callers to control the timeout, but actually it sets the timeout hard-coded to 25s. Am 27/05/2022 um 10:22 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > we always want the restore_list to use a timeout here. Set it to 25 seconds Such statements could be a bit more useful with some actual reasoning (e.g., short sentence about ill effects of lacking timeout) > so there is a little headroom between this and pveproxys 30s one. what if we'd add a call site outside the sync API response context (e.g., task worker or CLI rpcenv)? could be an artificial limitation in that case. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > src/PVE/PBSClient.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > index 37385d7..7eaace3 100644 > --- a/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > +++ b/src/PVE/PBSClient.pm > @@ -378,7 +378,7 @@ sub file_restore_list { > return run_client_cmd( > $self, > "list", > - [ $snapshot, $filepath, "--base64", $base64 ? 1 : 0 ], > + [ $snapshot, $filepath, "--base64", $base64 ? 1 : 0, '--timeout', 25], > 0, > "proxmox-file-restore", > $namespace,