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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by lists.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 80F96C309 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:19:56 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 57EA6336D3 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:19:26 +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 ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:19:25 +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 1C0A8448A8 for ; Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:19:25 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <174e5f00-af58-d440-6e87-a194526bc400@proxmox.com> Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 13:19:20 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.5.0 Content-Language: en-US To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com, =?UTF-8?Q?Fabian_Gr=c3=bcnbichler?= References: <20221107110035.93972-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com> <1668596522.lpeo4rqk2k.astroid@yuna.none> <39b12b91-05eb-8ad3-d7e0-6e67a3d1d103@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <39b12b91-05eb-8ad3-d7e0-6e67a3d1d103@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.156 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 -0.257 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage 1/2] zfs: only use cache when listing images locally X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2022 12:19:56 -0000 Am 16.11.22 um 14:30 schrieb Fiona Ebner: > Am 16.11.22 um 12:18 schrieb Fabian Grünbichler: >> On November 7, 2022 12:00 pm, Fiona Ebner wrote: >>> The plugin for remote ZFS storages currently also uses the same >>> list_images() as the plugin for local ZFS storages. The issue with >>> this is that there is only one cache which does not remember the >>> target host where the information originated. >>> >>> Simply restrict the cache to be used for the local ZFS plugin only. An >>> alternative solution would be to use a cache for each target host, but >>> that seems a bit more involved and could still be added in the future. >> >> wouldn't it be sufficient to just do >> >> $cache->{zfs}->{$storeid} >> >> when filling/querying the cache, and combining that with *always* listing only >> the storage-relevant pool? > > Yes, should work. I'll send a v2 with that. > Well, a $storeid-based cache would be useless for both existing callers using a cache parameter (pvesr's prepare_local_job and Storage.pm's vdisk_list), because they iterate over the storages once for a given cache. Should I get rid of the cache here entirely or do we go with this series after all? Also, I guess pvesr should switch to using Storage.pm's interface, rather than talk to the plugin directly.