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 A38A477B89 for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:26:56 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 91FCA11E3D for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:26:26 +0200 (CEST) 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 2CAB511E2F for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:26:26 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id EE5D845BEF for ; Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:26:25 +0200 (CEST) Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:26:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Dietmar Maurer To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Stefan Reiter Message-ID: <1849352005.1381.1619627181675@webmail.proxmox.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 Importance: Normal X-Mailer: Open-Xchange Mailer v7.10.5-Rev9 X-Originating-Client: open-xchange-appsuite X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.394 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment 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 2/3] RemoteChunkReader: add LRU cached variant 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: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 16:26:56 -0000 > + /// Create a new instance. > + /// > + /// Chunks listed in ``cache_hint`` are cached and kept in RAM, as well as the last > + /// 'cache_lru' accessed chunks (the latter via a mmap file). Does that cache_hint really helps here? Have you tested without? If so, whats the difference?