Skip to content

Add missing Maximum Concurrent Jobs to the Storage configuration#235

Merged
smortex merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage
Jan 5, 2026
Merged

Add missing Maximum Concurrent Jobs to the Storage configuration#235
smortex merged 3 commits into
masterfrom
maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage

Conversation

@smortex

@smortex smortex commented Jan 2, 2026 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Just like the director and file daemon, the storage daemon has a global "Maximum Concurrent Jobs" that sets the overall maximum number of concurrent jobs the daemon will run.

Without this, a blocked backup on a pool of a storage daemon prevent other jobs to other pools from being run.

@smortex smortex added the bug Something isn't working label Jan 2, 2026
@smortex smortex changed the title Add missing maxconcurjobs in the Storage section of the storage daemon Add missing Maximum Concurrent Jobs to the Storage configuration Jan 3, 2026
@smortex

smortex commented Jan 3, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Initial testing show the expected improvement (saw 2 jobs interleaved). Now the Device section should also be tunable.

Interestingly, the storage and storage::device parameters are called maxconcurjobs but other classes use max_concurrent_jobs. I will therefore adjust this PR to have consistent naming and deprecate the maxconcurjobs parameters (emitting a warning when it is used). The storage class will have a new device_max_concurrent_jobs to replace the legacy maxconcurjobs for the device it creates, along with the new max_concurrent_jobs that was missing.

@smortex
smortex force-pushed the maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage branch from 7ccbea7 to 687ed1c Compare January 4, 2026 20:15
@smortex smortex mentioned this pull request Jan 4, 2026
Draft
smortex
smortex commented Jan 4, 2026
View reviewed changes
Comment thread REFERENCE.md
Comment on lines -908 to +926
Default value: `5`
Default value: `20`

@smortex smortex Jan 4, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks like a backwards-incompatible change, but the old value here is what was used for the new device_max_concurrent_jobs. The job limit was missing and limiting the storage daemon to a single job only, which was not expected.

@smortex
smortex marked this pull request as ready for review January 4, 2026 21:10
@smortex
smortex force-pushed the maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage branch from 687ed1c to 264ef95 Compare January 5, 2026 03:01
@smortex
Add missing maxconcurjobs in the Storage section of the storage daemon
7d0514e 
Just like the director and file daemon, the storage daemon has a global
"Maximum Concurrent Jobs" that sets the overall maximum number of
concurrent jobs the daemon will run.
@smortex
smortex force-pushed the maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage branch from 264ef95 to 681cc24 Compare January 5, 2026 16:38
smortex added 2 commits January 5, 2026 06:46
@smortex
Consistently use max_concurrent_jobs
550e80d 
The bacula storage confiruration used maxconcurjobs while the other
components use max_concurrent_jobs.

Always use max_concurrent_jobs to control the number of concurrent jobs,
and emit a deprecation message when using the older maxconcurjobs.
@smortex
Fix spacing and regererate REFERENCE.md
586f36d
@smortex
smortex force-pushed the maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage branch from 681cc24 to 586f36d Compare January 5, 2026 16:46
@smortex

smortex commented Jan 5, 2026

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member Author

Rebased on top of master after #206 added tests for this class.

@smortex
smortex merged commit dda53f7 into master Jan 5, 2026
4 checks passed
@smortex
smortex deleted the maxconcurjobs-in-sd-storage branch January 5, 2026 16:48
@smortex smortex added this to the 9.0.0 milestone Jan 5, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@bastelfreak bastelfreak bastelfreak approved these changes

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

bug Something isn't working

Projects

None yet

Milestone

9.0.0

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants

@smortex @bastelfreak