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 3279C70F5C for ; Tue, 17 May 2022 10:32:59 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 23A8926393 for ; Tue, 17 May 2022 10:32:29 +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 91B0926388 for ; Tue, 17 May 2022 10:32:28 +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 6885843675 for ; Tue, 17 May 2022 10:32:28 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <78792ee7-bea9-0d62-873e-7530b0032089@proxmox.com> Date: Tue, 17 May 2022 10:32:27 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:101.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/101.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20220517065215.327699-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220517065215.327699-4-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <93d352ce-fe3c-7eee-4b07-b217df86b376@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.219 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment NICE_REPLY_A -0.401 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pbs-devel] [PATCH proxmox-backup 4/5] ui: datastore/Summary: change storage axis to power of two 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: Tue, 17 May 2022 08:32:59 -0000 Am 5/17/22 um 10:20 schrieb Dominik Csapak: > On 5/17/22 10:09, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >> Am 5/17/22 um 08:52 schrieb Dominik Csapak: >>> so that the unit is the same as in the overview panel on the same page >>> >> >> This missed the administration Server Status RRD for the root disk, but actually >> this needs to be the other way around, I switched to power of two for all memory >> graphs in PVE 7.0 and the storage one to power of ten, at least the pve storages, >> the root HD one in the node summary is still wrong (will fix). >> >> > > yeah you're right, i forgot about the administration rrd panels. > > any reason why we use different units for disk vs memory? because they're two different things usage wise, due to memory being tied to the CPU a power of two address and thus size comes just naturally, and the industries tradition is to advertised and base 10 for storage, where it doesn't really matter from a technical POV but from a marketing (bigger number for SI) > imho storage also often uses binary units. cannot remember to see any disk sold with a advertised size formatted as power of two, and users may be confused if they see less capacity than the disk promised. > > (`lvs`/`lsblk` uses that in it's default output, we use it > for vm/ct disks, etc.) we show SI units for the disk panel, it should rather fit that, also we nowhere show LVM in PBS, nor will we ever be able to show the same thing that all filesystem/ olume manager techs do, IMO also a bogus goal, what's important is to be consistent, which we never really had, it was always a weird mix of either, and especially the base ten for memory, which results in values on axis that just don't line nicely up has done it for me for the 6.4 release there.