From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2B6FF1FF163 for ; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:44:29 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E7AB330F03; Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:44:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2024 14:43:55 +0200 From: Fabian =?iso-8859-1?q?Gr=FCnbichler?= To: Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20240813132829.117460-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20240813132829.117460-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: astroid/0.16.0 (https://github.com/astroidmail/astroid) Message-Id: <1726142378.nmqd5w7on3.astroid@yuna.none> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.050 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. 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] [RFC qemu/storage/qemu-server/container/manager v2 00/25] backup provider API 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" On August 13, 2024 3:28 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote: > [snipped..] > Container mechanism 'directory': > > The backup provider gives the path to a directory with the full > filesystem structure of the container. > > Container mechanism 'directory': > > The backup provider gives the path to a (potentially compressed) tar > archive with the full filesystem structure of the container. this seems duplicated or wrongly copy-pasted? it might make sense to describe in more detail how the directory/tar should look like - mapped users (guest view, not host view, like we do) - what does "full filesystem structure" mean? (rootfs + all persistent mps in one hierarchy, with no top-level dirs that need to be stripped) left some comments on the individual patches, the big picture looks good to me. I do wonder whether we want to support the Borg and Example plugins though? if not, it might make sense to not ship them (but maybe just test them?).. there's a pretty tight coupling between storage plugin and backup provider plugin - that might lead to some complaints (e.g., I can imaging quite a few backup providers that just require some local file system for temp storage, and users wondering why they can't just enable that for an existing dir storage). it does make some things easier though, so I am not sure we need to change that, just wanted to draw attention to it. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel