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