From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 13CBF8E18
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:36 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F06A51444A
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +0200 (CEST)
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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3F3CC47D37;
Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:35 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <3e337e38-1a91-8b41-c03c-1f89c8885df7@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2023 12:24:34 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.14.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Alexandre Derumier <aderumier@odiso.com>
References: <20230619072841.38531-1-aderumier@odiso.com>
<20230619072841.38531-5-aderumier@odiso.com>
<809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <809ca35e-ba06-4326-b830-734096ed0370@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 1.662 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
NICE_REPLY_A -3.478 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
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v2 pve-manager 2/2] ui: qemu : memoryedit:
add new max && virtio fields
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 01 Sep 2023 10:24:36 -0000
Am 01.09.23 um 11:48 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 19/06/2023 um 09:28 schrieb Alexandre Derumier:
>> + xtype: 'pveMemoryField',
>> + name: 'max',
>> + minValue: 65536,
>> + maxValue: 4194304,
>> + value: '',
>> + step: 65536,
>> + fieldLabel: gettext('Maximum memory') + ' (MiB)',
>
> This huge step size will be confusing to users, there should be a way to have
> smaller steps (e.g., 1 GiB or even 128 MiB).
>
> As even nowadays, with a huge amount of installed memory on a lot of servers,
> deciding that a (potentially bad actor) VM can use up 64G or 128G is still
> quite the difference on a lot of setups. Fiona is checking the backend here
> to see if it might be done with a finer granularity, or what other options
> we have here.
>
>From a first glance, I think it should be possible. Even if we keep the
restriction "all memory devices should have the same size", which makes
the code easier:
For dimms, we have 64 slots, so I don't see a reason why we can't use 64
MiB granularity rather than 64 GiB.
For virtio-mem, we have one device per socket (up to 8, assuming a power
of 2), and the blocksize is 2 MiB, so we could have 16 MiB granularity.
Or is there an issue setting the 'size' for a virtio-mem-pci device to
such a fine grained value? Even if there is, we can just create the
device with a bigger supported 'size' and have our API reject a request
to go beyond the maximum later.