From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E89141FF189 for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:58:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 2CBA31D8B0; Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:58:13 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <17935971-dc70-4288-85d2-a7d125a61756@proxmox.com> Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 13:58:10 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> References: <20250403122732.369087-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com> <20250403122732.369087-4-c.ebner@proxmox.com> Content-Language: de-AT, en-US From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <20250403122732.369087-4-c.ebner@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.014 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 Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 4/4] docs: add description for gc-cache-capacity tuning parameter X-BeenThere: pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pbs-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel>, <mailto:pbs-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 2025-04-03 14:27, Christian Ebner wrote: > Adds a bullet point to the listed datastore tuning parameters, > describing its functionality, implications and typical values. > > Signed-off-by: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com> > --- > docs/storage.rst | 12 ++++++++++-- > 1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/docs/storage.rst b/docs/storage.rst > index 490302955..cab65ef79 100644 > --- a/docs/storage.rst > +++ b/docs/storage.rst > @@ -435,9 +435,17 @@ There are some tuning related options for the datastore that are more advanced: > > This can be set with: > > -.. code-block:: console > + .. code-block:: console > + > + # proxmox-backup-manager datastore update <storename> --tuning 'sync-level=filesystem' > > - # proxmox-backup-manager datastore update <storename> --tuning 'sync-level=filesystem' > +* ``gc-cache-capacity``: Datastore GC least recently used cache capacity: > + Allows to control the cache capacity used to keep track of chunks for which > + the access time has already been updated during phase 1 of garbage collection. > + This avoids multiple updates and increases GC runtime performance. The > + capacity is set as the given value multiplied by 1024. Higher values can > + reduce GC runtime at the cost of increase memory usage, setting the value to 0 > + disables caching. I think we could completely omit the "the capacity is set as the given value multiplied by 1024" sentence here and consider the fact that the LRU cache size is value * 1024 an implementation detail. For the user, the exact number of cached digests in the backend is probably not really that important, right? In reality, they just want some knob that they can adjust in a range from 0 (no caching) to some maximum. Same of course applies also for the GUI patch and the log message. What do you think? -- - Lukas _______________________________________________ pbs-devel mailing list pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel