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 BF7976128E for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:05:51 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id ACB992FE24 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:05:21 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 2A42D2FE18 for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:05:21 +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 E8AFF44F9C for ; Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:05:20 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 4 Feb 2022 11:05:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:97.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/97.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox Backup Server development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20220204091221.1781533-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <20220204091221.1781533-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20220204091221.1781533-2-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.060 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 -0.001 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 2/2] traffic-control: add debug log when we found a matching rule 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: Fri, 04 Feb 2022 10:05:51 -0000 On 04.02.22 10:12, Dominik Csapak wrote: > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > optional, at least one user in the forum has a problem with traffic > control, this could help debug that in the future... Above needs to be in the commit message and actually linking to the relevant forum thread. in general sure, but I dislike the direction of the approach, as its again moving in the same direction as e.g., pmxcfs, a single boolean flag for all or nothing, which in practice will soon mean that's rather useless as its spamming so much stuff that relevant things get drowned even for experienced users. More fine grained approach it both, the verbosity and the topic axis would be much nicer, especially the latter as then a user could only enable traffic-control related logs. But just mentioning as this is a major pain point in pmxcfs that I get "hurt" by frequently.. > src/cached_traffic_control.rs | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/src/cached_traffic_control.rs b/src/cached_traffic_control.rs > index 2f077d36..cd13bc1b 100644 > --- a/src/cached_traffic_control.rs > +++ b/src/cached_traffic_control.rs > @@ -342,6 +342,7 @@ impl TrafficControlCache { > Some((rule, _)) => { > match self.limiter_map.get(&rule.config.name) { > Some((read_limiter, write_limiter)) => { > + log::debug!("found traffic control rule for {:?} : {}", peer_ip, &rule.config.name); > (&rule.config.name, read_limiter.clone(), write_limiter.clone()) > } > None => ("", None, None), // should never happen