From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0492F9F083
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 21:02:26 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CB7CF2164
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 21:01:55 +0100 (CET)
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) server-digest SHA256)
 (No client certificate requested)
 by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 21:01:54 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
 by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B1C143F40
 for <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri,  3 Nov 2023 21:01:54 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <ba7179f0-49e5-4b3c-9960-9d1b634b8c8d@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Nov 2023 21:01:52 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta
Content-Language: en-GB
To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion <pbs-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
 Maximiliano Sandoval R <m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
References: <20231103151707.191010-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20231103151707.191010-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.069 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
 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] [RFC proxmox-backup 1/2] datastore: Allow encoding
 with a set compression level
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>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 03 Nov 2023 20:02:26 -0000

On 03/11/2023 16:17, Maximiliano Sandoval R wrote:
> We replace the boolean flag with an enum.
> 

so what levels did you test (with what test cases), which difference
in size was seen, any runtime impacts ...?

For such thing's I really want to have at least *some* info about
such basic questions, which everyone will (or at least, should) ask
when seeing such a change,  encoded in the commit message.

Something like that could also the basis of an argument for a (future)
change of the default level to 3 or so, maybe that's a better trade-off
than the current default.