From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gaio@lilliput.linux.it>
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D095393A40
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:20:44 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BE93F5500
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:20:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from picard.linux.it (picard.linux.it [IPv6:2001:1418:10:5::2])
 (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
 for <pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:20:13 +0200 (CEST)
Received: by picard.linux.it (Postfix, from userid 10)
 id 4E5503CACE8; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:20:06 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from hermione.lilliput.linux.it ([192.168.1.24]
 helo=hermione.sv.lnf.it) by eraldo.lilliput.linux.it with esmtpsa
 (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.89)
 (envelope-from <gaio@lilliput.linux.it>)
 id 1oaMHg-0000Bu-6J; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:18:24 +0200
Received: by hermione.sv.lnf.it (Postfix, from userid 1000)
 id E0047A00535; Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:18:23 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 21:18:23 +0200
From: Marco Gaiarin <gaio@lilliput.linux.it>
To: Julival Santos Reis =?utf-8?Q?J=C3=BAnior?= <julicravo@gmail.com>,
 pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
Message-ID: <YyjAf8WYFXhMxuz0@sv.lnf.it>
References: <20220915150037.61E429509@prox01.portoseguro>
 <CADzj91YrSzGGEsMYYp0vvhLasE2g4dSOFTn1ix2OuhhxZzknzw@mail.gmail.com>
 <YyRd+zVGV1ArdEi5@sv.lnf.it>
 <CADzj91Y=aCwbb+WgPFj+MbLoNd9EyhH-c-XwvpOr9nY0R+XiiQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CADzj91Y=aCwbb+WgPFj+MbLoNd9EyhH-c-XwvpOr9nY0R+XiiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Organization: Casa Gaiarin
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.199 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 JMQ_SPF_NEUTRAL           0.5 SPF set to ?all
 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
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Tue, 20 Sep 2022 10:00:26 +0200
Subject: Re: [PVE-User] Fwd: Replication Job: 101-0 failed
X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE user list <pve-user.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-user/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-user@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-user>, 
 <mailto:pve-user-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2022 19:20:44 -0000

Mandi! Julival Santos Reis Júnior
  In chel di` si favelave...

> Thanks for the feedback!

Please, don't reply personally, use the list!!!


> I had solved this problem in version 6 of proxmox.
> There was a parameter that I increased the timeout, and the system stopped
> giving these errors. But now it changed to version 7 and the problem came back.
> sending a print of the file in version 7, from the place I moved. I also read
> that the problem is solved by putting good quality SSD enterprise hard drives.

'timeout' isthe simplier consequence of other things, typically
load/iodelay.
So augmenting the timeout you are only curing the symptom, not the disease.

Try increase the blocksize (or, sure, spend more money and by good
enterprise SSD drives! ;-), instead of modifying the code for increase the
timeout...