From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 49F011FF16B for ; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:34:36 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 22226FD95; Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:36:01 +0200 (CEST) From: Friedrich Weber To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Tue, 29 Jul 2025 13:34:45 +0200 Message-ID: <20250729113523.72332-1-f.weber@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.47.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1753788919065 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.012 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% DMARC_MISSING 0.1 Missing DMARC policy KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [utils.pm, pveproxy.pm, pvedaemon.pm, proxmox.com] Subject: [pve-devel] [RFC http-server/manager 0/3] fix #5392: pveproxy, pvedaemon: make number of worker processes configurable X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" >From [1]: For pveproxy and pvedaemon, max_workers is currently hardcoded to 3 in PVE::Service::{pveproxy,pvedaemon}. This may not be enough for automation-heavy workloads that trigger a lot of API requests that are synchronously handled by pveproxy or pvedaemon, see e.g. #5391. This was also encountered occasionally in enterprise support. Marking as RFC, as - I'm not sure if the feature is a good idea and the implementation is acceptable - Documentation is currently missing. If this RFC is deemed acceptable, I'd include it in the v1. [1] https://bugzilla.proxmox.com/show_bug.cgi?id=5392 http-server: Friedrich Weber (1): api server: proxy config: read MAX_WORKERS integer key src/PVE/APIServer/Utils.pm | 7 +++++++ 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) manager: Friedrich Weber (2): partially fix #5392: pveproxy: make number of workers configurable partially fix #5392: pvedaemon: make number of workers configurable PVE/Service/pvedaemon.pm | 6 +++++- PVE/Service/pveproxy.pm | 3 ++- 2 files changed, 7 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Summary over all repositories: 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) -- Generated by git-murpp 0.8.1 _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel