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 10232888C for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:17:17 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id E941BA170 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:17:16 +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 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:17:15 +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 400DB43288 for ; Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:17:15 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 11:17:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.14.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Lukas Wagner References: <20230821134444.620021-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> From: Fiona Ebner In-Reply-To: <20230821134444.620021-1-l.wagner@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 1.616 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 NICE_REPLY_A -3.374 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [RFC storage/proxmox{, -perl-rs} 0/7] cache storage plugin status for pvestatd/API status update calls 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: Tue, 22 Aug 2023 09:17:17 -0000 Am 21.08.23 um 15:44 schrieb Lukas Wagner: > Open questions: > - not sure what a good expiration time for cached entries is. For > now I picked 30s, but there was not much thought behind that value. > If operations affecting the values like allocation, resize, etc. would invalidate the cache, I think we could go for a bit more. But if they don't, the limit can't be too high IMHO. Otherwise, users will wonder why the usage on the storage doesn't change after their action. And would it make sense to have the cache be opt-in? So that only pvestatd would use it, but standalone API/CLI calls always get current values? If there is invalidation like mentioned above, that might not be needed, but otherwise, I'm a bit afraid that handing out (slightly) outdated values might trip up some automated scripts doing batch work or something.