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 772696124B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:09:25 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7530F2FF77 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:09:25 +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 id CC00E2FF6B for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:09:24 +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 A334444FB2; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:09:24 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <06030899-49e4-7ad0-ea70-8c2bf2dd2dd7@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:09:23 +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: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox Backup Server development discussion References: <20220204091221.1781533-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220204091221.1781533-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.161 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 10:09:25 -0000 On 2/4/22 11:05, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 04.02.22 10:12, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> 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? could we simply have some 'sections' (like tc,connections,etc.) and enable them like this: PROXMOX_DEBUG=tc=debug,conn=info,foo=none or should we avoid the environment variable at all, and put it in the node config? > >> src/cached_traffic_control.rs | 1 + >> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) >> >> diff --git a/src/cached_traffic_control.rs b/src/cached_traffic_control.rs >> index 2f077d36..cd13bc1b 100644 >> --- a/src/cached_traffic_control.rs >> +++ b/src/cached_traffic_control.rs >> @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ impl TrafficControlCache { >> Some((rule, _)) => { >> match self.limiter_map.get(&rule.config.name) { >> Some((read_limiter, write_limiter)) => { >> + log::debug!("found traffic control rule for {:?} : {}", peer_ip, &rule.config.name); >> (&rule.config.name, read_limiter.clone(), write_limiter.clone()) >> } >> None => ("", None, None), // should never happen >