From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <c.heiss@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 7E05A941E8 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:45:14 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 5FDCDA61D for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:44:44 +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 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:44:43 +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 74D9A44D0F for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:44:43 +0100 (CET) Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 13:44:41 +0100 From: Christoph Heiss <c.heiss@proxmox.com> To: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com> Cc: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Message-ID: <20230110124441.g6mapiv7yauo2xjc@maui.proxmox.com> References: <20230102123633.2493599-1-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <20230102123633.2493599-3-c.heiss@proxmox.com> <dff207ed-4116-2010-1be0-d3b263469ea9@proxmox.com> <20230110111141.2hxrozsr7fatvswj@maui.proxmox.com> <cd42c9e1-f890-0b6a-b00b-5ef96f74a513@proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <cd42c9e1-f890-0b6a-b00b-5ef96f74a513@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.004 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 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 storage] fix #4289: pbs: wait for backup verification to finish before updating volume attribute 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: Tue, 10 Jan 2023 12:45:14 -0000 On Tue, Jan 10, 2023 at 01:34:14PM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > Am 10.01.23 um 12:11 schrieb Christoph Heiss: > > On Wed, Jan 04, 2023 at 11:50:38AM +0100, Fiona Ebner wrote: > >> It might not seem that big of a deal, because usually only manual > >> backups use 'protected'. But by doing it in > >> update_volume_attribute(), you also do it for 'notes', where it's not > >> needed and which is relevant to backup jobs where the increased wait > >> might be very noticeable. So at least, it should only be done for > >> 'protected' if doing it in update_volume_attribute(). > > That is actually the case now - updating notes takes a different path > > through update_volume_notes(). > > > > Sorry, I missed that. > > >> > >> It would be better if the protected flag could be specified upon > >> creation already. Would also fix the following race I guess: > > It definitely would be a lot cleaner. I'll see what I can do and rework > > the whole series. > > Probably involves adding a new parameter to the `proxmox-backup-client > > backup` command and API(?) AFAICS. But this would not be all that bad > > of a feature for the backup client in general, I think. > > I think you also need to add support in QEMU (new parameter for the > 'backup' QMP command) and the proxmox-backup-qemu library (to handle the > parameter). Thanks for the pointers! > > Regarding the API, maybe it can be its own endpoint in the backup API > (alongside endpoints like 'blob' and 'finish')? As long as we protect > the backup before marking it as finished it should be good. Just an > idea, not sure if it would be better. After looking into it, my first though was maybe to add a (boolean) parameter to the `finish` endpoint. But creating a separate endpoint and calling that before `finish` sounds very reasonable as well. Any thoughts on what would be more idiomatic/reasonable? > > > And I guess I need to figure out a way how to detect whether the new > > parameter is supported or not? > > If there is no straightforward way to make that information available in > VZDump.pm, we could also just base the decision off of the PBS version. Thanks for the idea, that may be doable! > > One way to decide if the current behavior should be used as a fallback > would be to check the protected status after finishing the backup. That > is slightly racy though, because something else could've already changed > the protection between finishing and the check. I'd base it off the decision from above - if the `proxmox-backup-client` version supports setting it directly, use that, otherwise simply fall back. > > > In case this it not supported, just keeping the current behavior (i.e. > > best-effort via the API and maybe failing) is probably the sensible way. > > Yes, to not break existing setups. Also note that non-PBS backup > storages need the current behavior too.