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 051D987E4
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:47:28 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id D1CF21C117
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:46:57 +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))
(No client certificate requested)
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:46:57 +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 0974644B0E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:46:57 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <d08aa6df-0bdf-933e-fa62-25d9a17095ab@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 09:46:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.3.0
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20221110143800.98047-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<20221110143800.98047-12-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<e3ebd7af-892a-f4d9-b104-1c6a172ea67f@proxmox.com>
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e3ebd7af-892a-f4d9-b104-1c6a172ea67f@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL 0.028 Adjusted
score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=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
=?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF
=?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query
to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [pvevm.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH ha-manager 02/11] resources: add
get_static_stats() method
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: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:47:28 -0000
Am 15.11.22 um 14:28 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> Am 10/11/2022 um 15:37 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
>> + return {
>> + maxcpu => $conf->{cpulimit} || $conf->{cores} || 0,
>> + maxmem => ($conf->{memory} || 512) * 1024 * 1024,
>
> nit, would prefer one of snake or kebab case for those keys (no hard feeling on which
> one, should just be consistent within similar (i.e., the stats) stuff.
>
>> + };
>> +}
>> +
>> 1;
>> diff --git a/src/PVE/HA/Resources/PVEVM.pm b/src/PVE/HA/Resources/PVEVM.pm
>> index 58c83e0..85196ed 100644
>> --- a/src/PVE/HA/Resources/PVEVM.pm
>> +++ b/src/PVE/HA/Resources/PVEVM.pm
>> @@ -173,4 +173,18 @@ sub remove_locks {
>> return undef;
>> }
>>
>> +sub get_static_stats {
>> + my ($class, $id, $service_node) = @_;
>> +
>> + my $conf = PVE::QemuConfig->load_config($id, $service_node);
>
> maybe it could be worth to use the CFS_IPC_GET_GUEST_CONFIG_PROPERTY successor that
> Dominik developed for the tags stuff once applied for this, can be still switched too
> transparently, if this shows to be a bottleneck in the future though, so just mentioning
> for completeness sake.
>
Sure, will be worth a test!
>> + my $defaults = PVE::QemuServer::load_defaults();
>> +
>> + my $cpus = ($conf->{sockets} || $defaults->{sockets}) * ($conf->{cores} || $defaults->{cores});
>> +
>> + return {
>> + maxcpu => $conf->{vcpus} || $cpus,
>> + maxmem => ($conf->{memory} || $defaults->{memory}) * 1024 * 1024,
>
> same here. As this is just internal we can also adapt it later though..
>
Well, the Rust backend also uses 'maxcpu' and 'maxmem' currently :/
So at least in Usage/Static.pm, it will be more difficult to change later.