From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4197C1FF16D for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:45:35 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 21F0430253; Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:45:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <88c03c89-f8e1-4538-94ad-89b829a6c06c@proxmox.com> Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2025 22:45:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Beta To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com>, Lukas Wagner <l.wagner@proxmox.com> References: <20250214130653.283012-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> <7b3e90c8-6ebb-400f-acf9-cac084cc39fe@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-GB From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com> In-Reply-To: <7b3e90c8-6ebb-400f-acf9-cac084cc39fe@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.039 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: [pdm-devel] [PATCH proxmox-datacenter-manager v2 00/28] metric collection improvements (concurrency, config, API, CLI) X-BeenThere: pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion <pdm-devel.lists.proxmox.com> List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pdm-devel>, <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe> List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pdm-devel/> List-Post: <mailto:pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com> List-Help: <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help> List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel>, <mailto:pdm-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe> Reply-To: Proxmox Datacenter Manager development discussion <pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pdm-devel" <pdm-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com> On 14/03/2025 15:10, Lukas Wagner wrote: > On 2025-02-14 14:06, Lukas Wagner wrote: >> ## To reviewers / open questions: >> - Please review the defaults I've chosen for the settings, especially >> the ones for the default metric collection interval (10 minutes) as >> well as max-concurrency (10). >> I also kindly ask to double-check the naming of the properties. >> See "pdm-api-types: add CollectionSettings type" for details >> >> - Please review path and params for new API endpoints (anything public >> facing that is hard to change later) >> >> - I've chosen a section-config config now, even though we only have a >> single section for now. This was done for future-proofing reasons, >> maybe we want to add support for different setting 'groups' or >> something, e.g. to have different settings for distinct sets of >> remotes. Does this make sense? >> Or should I just stick to a simple config for now? (At moments like >> these I wish for TOML configs where we could be a bit more flexible...) >> >> collection-settings: default >> max-concurrency 10 >> collection-interval 180 >> min-interval-offset 0 >> max-interval-offset 20 >> min-connection-delay 10 >> max-connection-delay 100 >> > > Currently thinking about generalizing the `max-concurrency` setting into something global > that affects all 'background' polling operations (resource cache/task cache refreshes/ > metric fetching). The usefulness of such a thing depends a bit on what we want to limit (amount of total requests to a target remote?), and why (reducing network traffic, load on target node, load on PDM, ...?) > > For actually controlling the concurrency we could maybe have a globally available > semaphore (potential deadlock potential in some cases). > Alternatively, we could think about having a 'background request queue' and > a 'background request scheduler', which does the actual requests on behalf of > the other tasks. semaphores sound nice but IMO often aren't, especially as they lack introspection, I'm sure that's better in rust than in C, but a dedicated queueing mechanism _might_ be nicer, especially as one can then also use more useful approaches to queue/schedule things. And, e.g., once our target APIs support something nice as QUIC we could even batch requests to a single target (remote) together. > > I'll give this a bit more thoughts in the next days/weeks, so maybe don't merge > this in the meanwhile. > ack. _______________________________________________ pdm-devel mailing list pdm-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pdm-devel