From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <d.csapak@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 9A4488D607;
Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:20:49 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 72DE065DB;
Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:20:19 +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;
Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:20:18 +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 9C5E641B27;
Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:20:18 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <8dd1d4cb-509f-e000-9c19-4165c9a74b6f@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2022 12:20:17 +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-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20220527082203.1653182-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<20220527082203.1653182-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
<15393855-d2d4-8a6f-6916-dd895e7b6cef@proxmox.com>
From: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <15393855-d2d4-8a6f-6916-dd895e7b6cef@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.066 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [pbsclient.pm]
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 <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, 08 Nov 2022 11:20:49 -0000
On 11/7/22 15:17, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> 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)
ok i thought the sentence below would be enough reasoning
>
>> 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.
i followed your suggestion from the v1 version by hardcoding the options
and you applied the pbs ones from v2 partially without
complaining about this ;)
in any case, since i have to touch this again when doing the
user dependent memory increase for the file restore,
i'd rather use the other approach wolfang mentioned
by having a %param hash with the 'timeout' (and
dynamic memory) option.
i'd send these two things together in one (pve) series.
is that ok for you?
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> 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,
>