From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 3C3B369C0B
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Dec 2020 10:55:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 302452292F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Dec 2020 10:55:15 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
 [212.186.127.180])
 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)
 key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 966C32291F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Dec 2020 10:55:13 +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 60F7C44E1F
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon,  7 Dec 2020 10:55:13 +0100 (CET)
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
References: <20201204091518.15237-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <1e3ffcfc-06e6-34a4-ee2f-99a0e0089be6@proxmox.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 10:55:12 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:84.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/84.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20201204091518.15237-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.071 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED        -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/,
 medium trust
 SPF_HELO_NONE           0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
 SPF_PASS               -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
Subject: [pve-devel] applied-series: [PATCH manager 1/2] vzdump: warn when
 both storage and dumpdir are defined in vzdump.conf
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>, 
 <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 09:55:15 -0000

On 04.12.20 10:15, Fabian Ebner wrote:
> and prefer storage, because the storage configuration might contain more
> settings. Warning is preferable over dying, because all backups would be
> affected (even if they don't use the vzdump.conf parameters) and the settings
> could've been compatible (i.e. dumpdir being the storage's dump dir). Previously
> one of the two options would randomly be chosen in the loop in new(), because of
> perl hash iteration.
> 
> Reported here: https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/vzdump-times-out-very-often-on-zfs-storage-pool.80035/post-354277
> 
> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/VZDump.pm | 5 +++++
>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> 
>

applied both patches, thanks!