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 3305387AB for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:38:24 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 0D5601B3D9 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:37:54 +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 for ; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:37:53 +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 E782C43EA1; Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:37:52 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <1927f51a-1c33-0930-f515-9cc4d57cc77e@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 08:37:51 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:107.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/107.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Alexandre Derumier References: <20221116041332.810054-1-aderumier@odiso.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20221116041332.810054-1-aderumier@odiso.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: =?UTF-8?Q?0=0A=09?=AWL -0.282 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: =?UTF-8?Q?address=0A=09?=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 =?UTF-8?Q?Alignment=0A=09?=KAM_NUMSUBJECT 0.5 Subject ends in numbers excluding current =?UTF-8?Q?years=0A=09?=NICE_REPLY_A -0.001 Looks like a legit reply (A) SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF =?UTF-8?Q?Record=0A=09?=SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF =?UTF-8?Q?record=0A=09?=URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [gnu.org, qemuserver.pm] Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH qemu-server] net: increase max queues to 128 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: Wed, 16 Nov 2022 07:38:24 -0000 Am 16/11/2022 um 05:13 schrieb Alexandre Derumier: > max supported queues tx + rx = 256, so 128 for combined > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-03/msg03917.html do you really use such a relatively high amount of queues in practice? The patch even mentions that on x86 one can only have 80 queue rx+tx pairs, so maybe lets go for 64 as increased limit and wait on some more user feedback for a even higher limit; at least if you don't need that already in your production setups? > > Signed-off-by: Alexandre Derumier > --- > PVE/QemuServer.pm | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/PVE/QemuServer.pm b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > index 3b64089..da007f4 100644 > --- a/PVE/QemuServer.pm > +++ b/PVE/QemuServer.pm > @@ -921,7 +921,7 @@ my $net_fmt = { > }), > queues => { > type => 'integer', > - minimum => 0, maximum => 16, > + minimum => 0, maximum => 128, > description => 'Number of packet queues to be used on the device.', > optional => 1, > },