[pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES storage/manager/guest-common/docs] improvements for protected backups
f.ebner at proxmox.com
Mon Jan 3 10:12:37 CET 2022
Am 12/22/21 um 08:02 schrieb Dominik Csapak:
> On 12/21/21 16:11, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> On 20/12/2021 11:31, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>> what do we gain by having a limit on the number of protected backups?
>> We avoid allowing users to create an infinite number of backups.
>> Remember that unprotected backups do not count towards the keep-X
>> parameters as they are considered a specially marked snapshot outside the
>> regular schedule, and doing so could lead to situations where no new
>> can be made (if sum of keep-X == sum of protected backups), which can be
>> pretty bad.
>> Now, if a admin wants to limit the amount of backups a user can make
>> of the
>> VMs those users own, the admin sets now keep-X (which superseded
>> The sum of all keep-X is always the maximal, total amount of backups
>> that can
>> be made, but if the user marks every new backup immediately as
>> protected they
>> can overstep that limit arbitrarily, this series addresses that while not
>> breaking backward comparability.
>>> storage 2/2 mentions that protection broke some assumption of vzdump
>>> which is (somehow? not really explained imho) fixing it?
>>> if it's not fixing it, what is the relation between those things?
>>> also, why have a 'magic' -1 value that means indefinite, we could
>>> simply always have that behavior?
>>> in my opinion, it makes no sense to limit the number of protected
>> see above, having the whole picture should bring sense to this..
>>> if it is necessary for some reason, it would be good to include
>>> that reason either in the commit message, or at least in the cover
Sorry about the lack of information. Of course the "why?" should be
covered in the cover letter, and in storage 2/2, I should've made
explicit what the implication of the broken assumption is/why the new
>> I mean while the cover letter only hints it, commit message from the
>> 2/2 patch is pretty clear to me.. FWIW, this was discussed quite
>> between Fabian E. and myself, and that result was further discussed
>> with Fabian G.
> OK, i get it now (also talked with fabian g. off-list).
> i did not conclude from the storage 2/2 patch that
> it implements an upper limit of backups, so i was confused.
> Thanks :)
More information about the pve-devel