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 4A43771B7D for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 08:53:20 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 3472BE49C for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 08:52:50 +0200 (CEST) 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 id 018A2E431 for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 08:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id BFF8142F61 for ; Fri, 20 May 2022 08:52:48 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 20 May 2022 08:52:43 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.8.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Matthias Heiserer , pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com References: <20220512092416.137095-1-m.heiserer@proxmox.com> <5e8f2678-4567-45be-76d3-f6d9f33f1fff@proxmox.com> From: Fabian Ebner In-Reply-To: <5e8f2678-4567-45be-76d3-f6d9f33f1fff@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.427 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 -0.717 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 T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE -0.01 - Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH v3 manager 1/2] HDEdit: check iothread by default and move it from advanced section 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: Fri, 20 May 2022 06:53:20 -0000 Am 19.05.22 um 15:35 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: > On 18.05.2022 11:40, Fabian Ebner wrote: >> Am 12.05.22 um 11:24 schrieb Matthias Heiserer: >>> Existing disks are not changed by this. >>> Especially in benchmarks, iothreads significantly improve IO >>> performance. >>> >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Matthias Heiserer >>> --- >>> >>> Changes from v2: >>> * also check iothread when adding a disk to an existing VM and >>>   scsi single >>> * use bind instead of hardcoded true >> >> This feels like to much automagic to me, because changes to the checkbox >> (even if checkbox is for a virtio disk) will change the controller type >> and vice versa. This also makes it impossible to only set iothread on >> certain disks or use the "Virtio SCSI single" controller type without >> setting iothread. >> >> Is it possible to instead have the checkbox be invalid with an >> appropriate error for the user when it's a bad configuration? > > Changes to the checkbox already change the Controller to Virtio SCSI > (single), regardless of what was selected before. Anyways, the automatic > change only happens in the wizard. > You're right, and I'd argue that the current behavior isn't ideal either ;). I guess with only a single scsi disk it makes sense to automatically switch, because the iothread setting would be invalid otherwise. It also happens for a virtio disk though, where the scsi controller type isn't even visible in the disk edit tab. One can still argue that it's just not relevant there. But we switched to using a multi-disk panel some time ago, and in that context it's just confusing, because changes to each iothread checkbox will affect the scsi controller type. > In case that a user wants iothread with a controller other than SCSI > single or on a single disk, they can change that in the VM config, but I > don't think that this is a common problem, at least much less common > than wanting iothread enabled per default. > > But I guess we can show a warning instead