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