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 4BC1B9254C for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:34:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 330BD3B203 for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:34:39 +0200 (CEST) Received: from lana.proxmox.com (unknown [94.136.29.99]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:34:38 +0200 (CEST) Received: by lana.proxmox.com (Postfix, from userid 10043) id 509452C1F5C; Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:34:38 +0200 (CEST) From: Stefan Hanreich To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2023 14:34:31 +0200 Message-Id: <20230329123436.2090248-1-s.hanreich@proxmox.com> X-Mailer: git-send-email 2.30.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.465 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 KAM_LAZY_DOMAIN_SECURITY 1 Sending domain does not have any anti-forgery methods RDNS_NONE 0.793 Delivered to internal network by a host with no rDNS SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_NONE 0.001 SPF: sender does not publish an SPF Record URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [storage.pm, qmrestore.pm, common.pm, jsonschema.pm] Subject: [pve-devel] [PATCH-SERIES storage/docs/guest-common/qemu-server/common] Improve and unify documentation of bwlimit parameter 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, 29 Mar 2023 12:34:39 -0000 While looking through our documentation for the bwlimit parameter I noticed that the descriptions are inconsistent and sometimes wrong / unclear about the actual unit used for the parameter. This patch series fixes some inconsistencies and errors related to this parameter. pve-storage: Stefan Hanreich (1): volume export: explicitly state unit of bandwidth limit PVE/Storage.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) pve-docs: Stefan Hanreich (1): backup: Fix wrong unit for bandwidth limit vzdump.adoc | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) qemu-server: Stefan Hanreich (1): qmrestore: improve description of bwlimit parameter PVE/CLI/qmrestore.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) pve-guest-common: Stefan Hanreich (1): vzdump: improve description of bwlimit parameter src/PVE/VZDump/Common.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) pve-common: Stefan Hanreich (1): json schema: improve description of bwlimit parameter src/PVE/JSONSchema.pm | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) -- 2.30.2