On 6/18/21 5:17 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
On 10.06.21 13:28, Dominik Csapak wrote:
On 6/10/21 11:29, Stefan Reiter wrote:
On 6/10/21 10:40 AM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
On 6/10/21 10:23, Stefan Reiter wrote:
On 6/10/21 9:37 AM, Dominik Csapak wrote:
and not the node where the browser connects.
there are at least two good reasons for this:
* it is confusing, since the user would expect it to start where
the ui is pointint to
* the storage may not be available on the node the browser connects
to, but it must be available on the node selected in the ui
Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csa...@proxmox.com>
---
Does this work with the proxying code for downloading files? I believe my
original reasoning behind this was because my implementation for quickly
forwarding data between the unprivileged and privileged daemons uses a local
Unix socket. Thus forwarding between nodes (as I understand this will do?)
would be subject to caching the data at the node being contacted, before
sending it to the browser.
well it does work, since i sucessfully downloaded some files from a backup
what exactly do you mean with
> would be subject to caching the data at the node being
> contacted, before sending it to the browser.
Try downloading a larger file (multiple GB) - is it streamed directly to the
browser or first transferred to node1 (from your example below), cached in
memory there, and only once it's fully in RAM transferred to the client? I
believe with this patch, the second variant will happen.
This whole idea was the reason for these shenanigans:
https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-http-server.git;a=commitdiff;h=51841e98fa5d4ad4d5b5250523c45f88769c577f
from a short test it seem you're right
(have a pveproxy worker that sits at 2GiB RES atm)
but the solution here is probably to drop the 'proxyto'
in the api call, and do the same as we do for
vnc proxying? ssh tunnel and starting the file
restore on the target node
@Stefan Any feedback regarding that proposal (or alternative fix)?
I mean, in the gui it may still make sense to use the local node if the storage
is
available there, as it normally means less total traffic produced, but if it's
not
configured as available there that's just not an option.
I talked with Dominik and we agreed that his idea is the right one. We left it
at
"one of us will implement it", since we deemed it not that big of an issue for
right
now, but I can take a look sooner as well if needed.
_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel
