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 1DFDE697E4 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:56:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 15DC328944 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:56:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com [212.186.127.180]) (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 firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 046EC28935 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:56:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C121646391 for ; Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:56:29 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 13:56:29 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:87.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/87.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Dominik Csapak References: <20210311091433.10150-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20210311091433.10150-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.049 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED -2.3 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, medium trust SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Subject: [pve-devel] applied: [PATCH widget-toolkit 1/2] data/*Store: drop storeid requirement 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: Thu, 11 Mar 2021 12:56:31 -0000 On 11.03.21 10:14, Dominik Csapak wrote: > We never use that and it serves no purpose. It probably was meant > to be the upstream config 'storeId' which would add the store to > the Ext.StoreManager. This is unpractical though, since then the > store has to be explicitely destroyed, otherwise the StoreManager > retains a reference and the GC cannot remove the store. > > Since donwstream users of the store can simply give the 'storeId' > property anyway if they need to be managed by the StoreManager, > drop the requirement here. > > Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak > --- > i tried to measure the memory impact of the StoreManager, but i did not > find an easy way to deterministically find out. On average though, > using 'storeId' everywhere, we retained a bit more memory (single > digit percentage difference) as far as i could see. > > but since we never actually use that functionality, i'd opt for > not doing it by default and if we need it for a single store, > do it manually (and then make sure the store gets removed again) > > if we apply this, i can prepare patch series to remove the > 'storeid's from pve/pmg/pbs > > src/data/ObjectStore.js | 4 ---- > src/data/RRDStore.js | 5 ----- > src/data/UpdateStore.js | 3 --- > 3 files changed, 12 deletions(-) > > applied, thanks!