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 6F4BD1FF13F for ; Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:51:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F349A192A0; Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:52:25 +0100 (CET) From: Maximiliano Sandoval To: "Shannon Sterz" Subject: superseded: [PATCH docs 1/2] local-zfs: Rephrase ARC limit In-Reply-To: (Shannon Sterz's message of "Wed, 25 Feb 2026 14:33:09 +0100") References: <20260224105435.184325-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> <20260224105435.184325-2-m.sandoval@proxmox.com> User-Agent: mu4e 1.12.9; emacs 30.1 Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2026 09:51:49 +0100 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Bm-Milter-Handled: 55990f41-d878-4baa-be0a-ee34c49e34d2 X-Bm-Transport-Timestamp: 1772095892028 X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.972 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 RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED 0.618 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED 0.734 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED 0.78 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to Validity was blocked. See https://knowledge.validity.com/hc/en-us/articles/20961730681243 for more information. SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record Message-ID-Hash: B2REM47KLKRWVUORIOG2XR7J66CNJ4W7 X-Message-ID-Hash: B2REM47KLKRWVUORIOG2XR7J66CNJ4W7 X-MailFrom: m.sandoval@proxmox.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; loop; banned-address; emergency; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.10 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: "Shannon Sterz" writes: > On Tue Feb 24, 2026 at 11:54 AM CET, Maximiliano Sandoval wrote: >> We rephrase the current section putting more emphasis on the current >> +Before {pve} 8.1, the ARC usage limit was set to '50 %' without clamping it to a >> [..] >> +maximum size. For existing installations that predate {pve} 8.1, manual steps >> +would have to be performed in order to lower the usage limit as described below. > > this and the other patch in this series looks good to me, one small > comment: maybe mention that this isn't something set by the installer or > pve, but rather just the zfs default [1]. > > [1]: https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/man/master/4/zfs.4.html#zfs_arc_max > > other than that, consider this: > > Reviewed-by: Shannon Sterz > >> >> Allocating enough memory for the ARC is crucial for IO performance, so reduce it >> with caution. As a general rule of thumb, allocate at least +2 GiB Base + 1 Superseded-by: https://lore.proxmox.com/all/20260226084639.107816-1-m.sandoval@proxmox.com/ -- Maximiliano