From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [212.224.123.68]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 97C621FF17E for ; Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:40:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 17E22BAC0; Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:40:20 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 2 Oct 2025 11:39:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Proxmox VE development discussion , "f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com" References: <1755094937.hut7e2rxef.astroid@yuna.none> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1759397964692 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.021 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 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 qemu-server] qcow2: increase cache-size to 1GB 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: , Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com Sender: "pve-devel" Am 14.08.25 um 1:10 PM schrieb DERUMIER, Alexandre via pve-devel: >>> we also know the image size here, so we could use a capped, derived >>> value? Yes, I'd also be in favor of using something calculated from the size. We could additionally add a drive configuration option to override the value if we really want to. >>> >>> what if the disk is resized? > > One problem is disk resize, because the cache size can't be increase > without restart. That's why I think it's better to use a big cache > size.(It's really a max value) But the max value might even be reached for relatively small disks. And there are users that have a lot of VMs with rather small disks. For them, the increase in memory consumption would be quite big I suppose! Resizing a disk in a way that changes the order of magnitude of its size is rather uncommon, so I don't see an issue of not having a perfect cache size after such a resize. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel