From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A8872612CE for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A63F830317 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [94.136.29.106]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 1CA273030C for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:21:13 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EB5D943F53 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:21:12 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <11a9c61d-839b-f4c0-0c25-b438a23bc67e@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:21:11 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>, Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> References: <20220204091221.1781533-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220204091221.1781533-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <c34959fc-b499-4452-45c1-f3f5982cbf5d@proxmox.com> <06030899-49e4-7ad0-ea70-8c2bf2dd2dd7@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <06030899-49e4-7ad0-ea70-8c2bf2dd2dd7@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.060 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 2/2] traffic-control: add debug log when we found a matching rule X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 10:21:13 -0000 On 04.02.22 11:09, Dominik Csapak wrote: > On 2/4/22 11:05, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> On 04.02.22 10:12, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com> >>> --- >>> optional, at least one user in the forum has a problem with traffic >>> control, this could help debug that in the future... >> >> Above needs to be in the commit message and actually linking to the relevant >> forum thread. >> >> in general sure, but I dislike the direction of the approach, as its again >> moving in the same direction as e.g., pmxcfs, a single boolean flag for all >> or nothing, which in practice will soon mean that's rather useless as its >> spamming so much stuff that relevant things get drowned even for experienced >> users. >> >> More fine grained approach it both, the verbosity and the topic axis would >> be much nicer, especially the latter as then a user could only enable >> traffic-control related logs. >> >> But just mentioning as this is a major pain point in pmxcfs that I get "hurt" >> by frequently.. > > makes total sense. did you already imagine any way to enable this? I haven't thought out any specifics for our rust env yet, fwiw log provides a target and the module-path in the Record metadata, either or both could be used for employing some filtering. FWIW, we already depend transitively on the `tracing` crate, which could be also leveraged for a use case like this. Maintaining that is some work, IME having, somewhat thought out, tracing integrated in a system can make debugging and the like multiple orders of magnitude easier and faster. > could we simply have some 'sections' (like tc,connections,etc.) > and enable them like this: I would imagine that sections could be seen as what I called topics, so yes, something like that. > PROXMOX_DEBUG=tc=debug,conn=info,foo=none > > or should we avoid the environment variable at all, and put it in > the node config? > would be an option, but IMO not too relevant where the current level comes from, I'd figure that once we decide on a basic direction of how/what the setting source should be rather on the easy side.