backup/datastore: move manifest locking to /run
this fixes the issue that on some filesystems, you cannot recursively remove a directory when you hold a lock on a file inside (e.g. nfs/cifs) it is not really backwards compatible (so during an upgrade, there could be two daemons have the lock), but since the locking was broken before (see previous patch) it should not really matter (also it seems very unlikely that someone will trigger this) Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6bd0a00c46
commit
179145dc24
@ -257,6 +257,12 @@ impl DataStore {
|
||||
)
|
||||
})?;
|
||||
|
||||
// the manifest does not exists anymore, we do not need to keep the lock
|
||||
if let Ok(path) = self.manifest_lock_path(backup_dir) {
|
||||
// ignore errors
|
||||
let _ = std::fs::remove_file(path);
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
Ok(())
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
@ -698,13 +704,32 @@ impl DataStore {
|
||||
))
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
/// Returns the filename to lock a manifest
|
||||
///
|
||||
/// Also creates the basedir. The lockfile is located in
|
||||
/// '/run/proxmox-backup/locks/{datastore}/{type}/{id}/{timestamp}.index.json.lck'
|
||||
fn manifest_lock_path(
|
||||
&self,
|
||||
backup_dir: &BackupDir,
|
||||
) -> Result<String, Error> {
|
||||
let mut path = format!(
|
||||
"/run/proxmox-backup/locks/{}/{}/{}",
|
||||
self.name(),
|
||||
backup_dir.group().backup_type(),
|
||||
backup_dir.group().backup_id(),
|
||||
);
|
||||
std::fs::create_dir_all(&path)?;
|
||||
use std::fmt::Write;
|
||||
write!(path, "/{}{}", backup_dir.backup_time_string(), &MANIFEST_LOCK_NAME)?;
|
||||
|
||||
Ok(path)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fn lock_manifest(
|
||||
&self,
|
||||
backup_dir: &BackupDir,
|
||||
) -> Result<File, Error> {
|
||||
let mut path = self.base_path();
|
||||
path.push(backup_dir.relative_path());
|
||||
path.push(&MANIFEST_LOCK_NAME);
|
||||
let path = self.manifest_lock_path(backup_dir)?;
|
||||
|
||||
// update_manifest should never take a long time, so if someone else has
|
||||
// the lock we can simply block a bit and should get it soon
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user