tepichord/milner
1
1
Fork 0
Code Issues 8 Pull requests 5 Projects 1 Releases Packages Wiki Activity Actions

Support backups of persistent data #44

Open
tepichord wants to merge 15 commits from feat/42-support-backups-persistent-data into main
pull from: feat/42-support-backups-persistent-data
merge into: tepichord:main
Conversation 1 Commits 15 Files changed 11 +245
tepichord commented 2026-09-10 16:22:43 -07:00
Owner
Copy link

Closes #42

Automated PR created by forgejo-done adapter.

Closes #42 Automated PR created by forgejo-done adapter.
Canonical sanoid configuration for ZFS snapshots of the tank/milner
dataset, with systemd timers for automated pruning (every 15 min) and
monitoring (weekly). capacity_warn/capacity_crit live in the root-pool
section per sanoid conventions.

Refs: #42
sanoid (plus syncoid and findoid) on PATH in nix develop for
snapshot management and future offsite replication.

Refs: #42
New section covering the one-time migration runbook, sanoid snapshot
policy, capacity monitoring, rollback drill procedure, and explicit
offsite-deferral statement. Existing sections 7-9 renumbered to 8-10
with all cross-references updated.

Refs: #42
One-line pointers in root, worker, and vault READMEs directing readers
to OPERATIONS.md §7 for the snapshot policy and migration runbook.

Refs: #42
Offline tests verifying sanoid.conf retention tiers, capacity thresholds,
systemd timer configuration, and OPERATIONS.md §7 content (migration
path, offsite deferral).

Refs: #42
The staged/restored checksum verifications ran from the caller's cwd while
the manifest holds paths relative to the directory itself, so they always
failed. The clone check pointed at /tank/verify, but the pool is created
with -m /mnt/data, so a clone of tank/milner mounts at /mnt/data/verify.
Inserting §7 ZFS shifted Woodpecker/Storage/Durable volumes to §8/§9/§10,
but only the top-level headings and in-file prose references moved. The
subsection headings stayed 7a-7i / 8a-8f / 9a-9g, colliding with the new
§7 subsections, and four back-references were over-incremented (§8 items
became §10 instead of §9). Cross-references in the sibling READMEs, the
Terraform/tfvars comments, tests, AGENTS/ARCHITECTURE and drills/check.sh
are updated to match.
tepichord commented 2026-09-10 22:33:15 -07:00
Author
Owner
Copy link

Merge changes from main

Merge changes from main
tepichord added this to the MVP project 2026-09-10 22:33:22 -07:00 
Both conflicts were section-numbering collisions. main added Pocket ID as
§5 (shifting Client devices to §6 and Bring-up order to §7) while this
branch had added §7 ZFS, so the merged runbook would otherwise carry two
§7 headings.

Resolved as: §5 Pocket ID, §6 Client devices, §7 Bring-up order, §8 ZFS,
§9 Woodpecker, §10 Storage, §11 Durable volumes. main's bring-up steps
13-14 (Pocket ID key \u2192 Vault, Vault OIDC registration) and the Pocket ID
OIDC block in .env.example are kept verbatim; every \u00a7 reference and
subsection heading across the repo follows the new numbering.
The merge resolution moved Pocket ID into §5 and Client devices to §6, but
the 'What lives where' table still pointed client daemon flags at §5. Point
it at §6, the section that actually documents --operator/--accept-routes.
zfs/sanoid.conf referenced OPERATIONS.md §8 but ZFS is §11.
Removed a verbose inline comment in test_zfs.py that duplicated the
docstring.

Refs: #44
The merge resolution kept the pre-merge renumbering's references while
OPERATIONS.md took main's section order: Woodpecker is §7 (§7h for the
Cloudflare Tunnel), and the drill ladder is §9d. Update .env.example,
.gitignore and cloudflare/terraform.tfvars.example to match.

Refs: #44
§11a delegated the build-from-source step to "the planning comment", the
only off-repo reference in the runbook and the step the pre-mortem flags
as the highest risk. Inline the commands and note the kernel-update
rebuild requirement.

Refs: #44
docs(agents): add zfs/ to the repo map
All checks were successful
ci/woodpecker/pr/woodpecker Pipeline was successful
Details
84b8158487 
Refs: #44
All checks were successful
ci/woodpecker/pr/woodpecker Pipeline was successful
Required
Details
This pull request has changes conflicting with the target branch.
  • AGENTS.md
  • OPERATIONS.md
  • README.md
  • flake.nix
View command line instructions

Checkout

From your project repository, check out a new branch and test the changes.
git fetch -u origin feat/42-support-backups-persistent-data:feat/42-support-backups-persistent-data
git switch feat/42-support-backups-persistent-data
Sign in to join this conversation.
Reviewers
No reviewers
Labels
Clear labels   
blocked

   
bug

Something is not working

  
duplicate

This issue or pull request already exists

  
effort
high

  
effort
low

  
effort
medium

  
effort
minimal

  
enhancement

New feature

  
help wanted

Need some help

  
invalid

Something is wrong

  
pr
feedback
Used for PRs, indicates that feedback has been given and agent needs to make changes

  
pr
reviewing
Used for PRs, indicates that a human is waiting to review the pull request, no action needed by the agent

  
question

More information is needed

  
status
backlog
Ignore, no work needed yet, human will assign this work by changing to status/planning

  
status
document
Record findings, create flashcards, and document knowledge in knowledgebase for the future

  
status
done
Completed when PR is merged, no more work needed.

  
status
implement
Make the code changes. Should be done by a faster and cheaper model

  
status
pending
Give human a chance to review planning details

  
status
planning
Ready to begin. Fill out implementation details and things like acceptance criteria, etc. A smarter thoughtful llm should be delegated for this

  
status
reviewing
PR is created and feedback loop begins between human and agent

  
waiting

   
wontfix

This won't be fixed

No labels
blocked
bug
duplicate
effort
high
effort
low
effort
medium
effort
minimal
enhancement
help wanted
invalid
pr
feedback
pr
reviewing
question
status
backlog
status
document
status
done
status
implement
status
pending
status
planning
status
reviewing
waiting
wontfix
Milestone
Clear milestone
No items
No milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No items
No project
MVP
Assignees
Clear assignees
No assignees
1 participant
Notifications
Due date
The due date is invalid or out of range. Please use the format "yyyy-mm-dd".

No due date set.

Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference
tepichord/milner!44
No description provided.