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 DDCC61FF189
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Apr 2025 14:37:18 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3A6EB1EA1C;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2025 14:37:06 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <17f3c997-fc1b-47d2-b29b-080f630f1877@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:37:03 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>,
 Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
References: <20250403122732.369087-1-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20250403122732.369087-4-c.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <17935971-dc70-4288-85d2-a7d125a61756@proxmox.com>
 <546d1c9a-f87c-40d1-af45-54b8a0b7abd9@proxmox.com>
 <725e5a3b-4c3b-49aa-8f37-a13ad331ad99@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US, de-DE
From: Christian Ebner <c.ebner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <725e5a3b-4c3b-49aa-8f37-a13ad331ad99@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL 0.031 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-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed"
Errors-To: pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pbs-devel" <pbs-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

On 4/4/25 14:28, Lukas Wagner wrote:
> 
> 
> On  2025-04-04 14:20, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>> Two alternatives:
>> - Changes this to the shift width, i.e. the x from 2^x, similar to the
>>    ZFS setting. Makes it nice small number to configure and for most
>>    use cases the exponential nature should be still granular enough.
>>    That said, it's not very user-friendly, at least to those without
>>    some level of CS background or the like.
>>
>> - just drop the * 1024 factor and allow users to enter the full number,
>>    it then can be simply described as numbers of chunks which is trivial
>>    to understand and relate too.
>>
>> Personally I'd favor the second option, mainly because it's so simple,
>> and having big numbers here is not that of a huge problem.
> 
> Sounds like a good idea, I like it.
> My main gripe with the "times 1024" option was that it makes it a bit
> more confusing to the user (e.g. me, when reading 'GC LRU cache capacity (in multiples of 1024 chunk digests)'
> in the UI I first thought that the value itself must be a multiple of 1024).
> 
> Changing the setting to the full number, we avoid this potential for confusion while
> still giving power-users a good sense of what is going on under the hood.

Okay, so let's go with the full values there, that should be the least 
confusing one.


_______________________________________________
pbs-devel mailing list
pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pbs-devel