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 5A27A1FF189
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Fri,  4 Apr 2025 14:29:14 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8C3A11E786;
	Fri,  4 Apr 2025 14:29:02 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <725e5a3b-4c3b-49aa-8f37-a13ad331ad99@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 14:28:59 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion
 <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
 Christian Ebner <c.ebner@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>
Content-Language: de-AT, en-US
From: Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <546d1c9a-f87c-40d1-af45-54b8a0b7abd9@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  2025-04-04 14:20, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> Am 04.04.25 um 13:58 schrieb Lukas Wagner:
>> 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.
> 
> But once that option is available it's part of the API and not just
> an implementation detail anymore?
> 
>> 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.
> 
> For some, probably even a lot, users it might be indeed enough to
> like double or half the number depending on if they want to improve
> performance or reduce memory footprint.
> 
> But I know users that have a hard time working with a numerical
> setting without knowing what it's exactly doing on a lower level, at
> least for me such settings are often rather irritating, as I cannot
> really have a good thought process for how I'd choose the number
> depending on what I want to achieve.
> 
> So while I agree with your underlying point, I'd still like users
> being able to relatively easily find out how much change translates
> in what impact.
> 
>> Same of course applies also for the GUI patch and the log message.
>>
>> What do you think?
> 
> 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.

> 
> ps. secret option three: adapt the human byte selector in the frontend
> to expose selecting kilo-chunks and mega-chunks ;-)
> 


-- 
- Lukas



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