From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 2CE3F654EC for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:59:25 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 1BA8225AF0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:58:55 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (pmg.fws.fr [51.91.175.36]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 2FC1F25AE6 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:58:45 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F1FA7C1575 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (zmproxy.fws.fr [10.29.1.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 466E2C02B3 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 323B58B79CF for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0921E8B79D0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:03 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmproxy.fws.fr 0921E8B79D0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=firewall-services.com; s=7DAD15A2-D84A-11E9-8F77-BEC4FAA34EBC; t=1595487183; bh=I5fBrgop7gCBPQykPDfGIbrHhg91fz//aWkJdBnvBRk=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=wxFWrcGVD/vUDrnUCerT9LVmSxweeUKRK3fkLfyk/YVUcGD0zgNv2WwwvLLrCfye4 UjnxlJj5QcRmakiOg6IsNUk9T7hW5VGNY72pJboQkYl2akJryiFz2glPhnS5OD5XGh vEkz+mg7vQCRy9dbxuNiUOYb9V7OLi5ek1y1Tb0XGiZex0EveBfFsen58xxwb/gOyG Pskg/y3APIn4qZOj8G+z3yxIM5h8PSnEW1yTTJGjs5fg31+y+Ddf2FFcwc/jGd+qWI twk9qnXUyosgPFUYZE0ngaWQ71YxYwGAHN0cSVFDzE2vl6BIwc4wpNUBjkrLKQ1ows cYy3wFJnUf5Tw== Received: from zmstore.fws.fr (zmstore.fws.fr [10.29.3.15]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E158B79CF for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:02 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 08:53:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Daniel Berteaud To: Proxmox VE user list Message-ID: <141180690.77175.1595487181182.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> In-Reply-To: <1595486387.pi9zv7y79a.astroid@nora.none> References: <1110267368.76036.1595436034847.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> <1595486387.pi9zv7y79a.astroid@nora.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.29.1.17] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3955 (ZimbraWebClient - GC83 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3953) Thread-Topic: PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? Thread-Index: Wams2QwIM9ooMOR7Bn7/I8huomyPJQ== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.213 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_INVALID 0.1 DKIM or DK signature exists, but is not valid DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR 0.01 SPF: test of HELO record failed (temperror) T_SPF_TEMPERROR 0.01 SPF: test of record failed (temperror) Subject: Re: [PVE-User] PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 06:59:25 -0000 ----- Le 23 Juil 20, =C3=A0 8:43, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler f.gruenbichler@pr= oxmox.com a =C3=A9crit : > possibly you haven't upgraded to pve-qemu-kvm 5.0-11 (or your VM hasn't > been restarted yet since the upgrade): >=20 > https://git.proxmox.com/?p=3Dpve-qemu.git;a=3Dcommit;h=3Df257cc05f4fbf772= cad3231021b3ce7587127a1b I'm running pve-qemu-kvm 5.0.0-11, and all the implied VM have been either = (cold) rebooted, or migrated. >=20 > the bitmap has a granularity of 4MB, so depending on the activity inside > you can see quite a bit of amplification. also writing and then > zeroing/reverting again to the old content would leave a mark in the > bitmap without permanently changing the contents. >=20 Yes, I'd expect some amplification, but not that much. For my Zabbix server= , it's nearly canceling all the benefit of using a dirty bitmap. One thing I've noted, is that I get expected values at least for one guest,= running PfSense (where I get ~150MB of dirty blocks each days). Most of my= other VM are Linux, I'll check if it could be related to the atime update = or something Cheers, Daniel --=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ ] =09 Daniel Berteaud=20 FIREWALL-SERVICES SAS, La s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des r=C3=A9seaux=20 Soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de Services en Logiciels Libres=20 T=C3=A9l : +33.5 56 64 15 32=20 Matrix: @dani:fws.fr=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ | https://www.firewall-services.com ]