From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9]) by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA06C1FF164 for ; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:57:00 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A68FA1B2B2; Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:57:40 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2024 11:56:48 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird To: Thomas Lamprecht , Maximiliano Sandoval References: <20241001140833.330843-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <053b9820-fe80-4abf-b774-6f8d5e4da368@proxmox.com> Content-Language: en-US From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <053b9820-fe80-4abf-b774-6f8d5e4da368@proxmox.com> X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.057 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] api: qemu: create: default cpu to x86-64-v2-AES 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 Cc: 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 22.10.24 um 15:35 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht: > Am 22/10/2024 um 14:15 schrieb Maximiliano Sandoval: >> Thomas Lamprecht writes: >> >>> And even then, would this still break restoring backups made before that >>> change? >>> If, this would fall under the changes that need versioning the guest >>> configs. Which naturally is possible but is IMO also not something I'd >>> do lightly, as that's something that might have wide-reaching consequences. >> >> Would it make more sense to do this only for the CLI tool, and only when creating new VMs? >> > > Hmm, it would feel a bit odd to me to single that specific "mismatch" between > UI default and CLI/schema out but ignore the others, like e.g., the memory > default of 2048, or some dynamic defaults like the OS-type dependent ones. > > And while it would have reduced impact, it would be still a breaking change > that might affect peoples automation/scripts. > But if more than just the CPU type would be looked at, and adapted such that > UI and CLI behave more the same, it might be indeed a feasible way to improve > UX slightly on the next major release next year. > Conveying the reason for different defaults and how one can look into which > one will be applied would warrant a short paragraph in the docs then too. > And taking the chance and looking at the CT story on this would be great too, > e.g., like is 512 MB really still a good default for UI/CLI, or unprivileged > vs. privileged. Maybe we could have (datacenter-wide?) default profiles (one for containers, one for VMs) whose values are used for new guest creation? Users could modify them if desired and they could also be used to pre-fill values in the UI. Could then be shipped for PVE 9 with sensible values. _______________________________________________ pve-devel mailing list pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel