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 7E4A298F7
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:26:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 756391DA38
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:26:40 +0200 (CEST)
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 id 62ABF1DA2A
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:26:39 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 326D64299C
 for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:26:39 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <93aab7ce-46f3-2658-e53a-edfa48669331@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Apr 2022 15:26:37 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:100.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/100.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20211223120622.2498315-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20211223120622.2498315-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.029 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
 URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
 http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
 information. [zfspoolplugin.pm]
Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH storage] fix #3803: ZFSPoolPlugin:
 zfs_request: increase minimum timeout in worker
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, 26 Apr 2022 13:26:40 -0000

On 23.12.21 13:06, Dominik Csapak wrote:
> Since most zfs operations can take a while (under certain conditions),
> increase the minimum timeout for zfs_request in workers to 5 minutes.
> 
> We cannot increase the timeouts in synchronous api calls, since they are
> hard limited to 30 seconds, but in worker we do not have such limits.
> 
> The existing default timeout does not change (60minutes in worker,
> 5seconds otherwise), but all zfs_requests with a set timeout (<5minutes)
> will use the increased 5 minutes in a worker.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
>  PVE/Storage/ZFSPoolPlugin.pm | 7 ++++++-
>  1 file changed, 6 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
>

applied, thanks!