backup mail report says INTERRUPTED but it's not ?
-
@Bastien-Nollet said in backup mail report says INTERRUPTED but it's not ?:
file packages/xo-server-backup-reports/dist/index.js by a
modification done, will give feedback
-
here is a first feedback of this annoying INTERRUPTED random issue (╯‵□′)╯︵┻━┻
Started 12/10/2025 to appear (filtered view of mail inbox on word INTERRUPTED)
All these backups are indeed SUCCESS in XOA, are present on the remotes, are restorable.
We have 14 backup reports each day. As you can see, some days no interrupted, some days multiple ones.
Backups are spanned from noon to late at night.Today (after applying your patch code) was either a good day, or patch succedeed ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Will keep looking for rogue INTERRUPTIONs
-
@Pilow Thanks, it's promising but we'll wait for more runs on your side
If it's that, at least it's not a biggie in the end! -
I agree, let's wait for more runs.
If it's indeed a race condition, we'll still have to figure out a better way to settle this than just adding delay
-
@Bastien-Nollet new day without false INTERRUPTED
the scrutiny of backup email reports made me find a new bug in backups (not reports this time)
i'll create a new topic about the dreaded BACKUP FELL BACK TO A FULL --> can provoke it on purpose ! -
Thanks @Pilow for the tests.
We'll have to investigate this to fix it more properly than adding a ugly delay.
-
@Bastien-Nollet another good day
I think i'll swap to feedback if problem is back than problem is not here anymore
on your side to find something sexier than delay ^^' but it seems to be a race condition
-
Hi @Pilow,
Thanks again for the feedback, I think now we have enough data to be sure it's indeed a race condition.
We noticed that the log you sent earlier in this topic is a backup job using a proxy. Could you tell if the backup jobs that ended up with a wrong status in the report were all using a proxy, or not all of them?
-
@Bastien-Nollet 100% of our backup jobs are done by proxy
we offload that of main XOA that is purely for administration/management -
Hi @Pilow,
I've done some more testing and looked at the code, and I wasn't able to reproduce this behaviour once. It's also unclear to me why it can happen.
We may just add the delay as you did, but 10s is probably too long. Could you try to replace it by a 1s delay instead, and tell us if it's enough?
-
@Bastien-Nollet okay i'll do that tonight and will report back
