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 8E60265671 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8B3D42775C for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:33 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (pmg.fws.fr [51.91.175.36]) (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 C1D7827752 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from pmg.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 91183C29D4 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:32 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (zmproxy.fws.fr [10.29.1.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by pmg.fws.fr (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 51676C01B5 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 47EA88B79CF for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Received: from zmproxy.fws.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2FC738B79D0 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:31 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.10.3 zmproxy.fws.fr 2FC738B79D0 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=firewall-services.com; s=7DAD15A2-D84A-11E9-8F77-BEC4FAA34EBC; t=1595497231; bh=gC6o8p9EQ/fSBk7BtcFT2okGBtQp21riMP+spWzzW3s=; h=Date:From:To:Message-ID:MIME-Version; b=3gtJcObk9kRbhVe9gKTCflLzznEAT+d5DL4fdEJkm0Yi+7X+Wja50/WV/MKeuNojh bJEzoIa/f+gFDJnC8sx7+CqXLHesq5uSdid0kpp0vt9QpCk2qXLWIUpvXb2yr1n5Sz nEn578c42e0SdXAV0wzoaOeLIDN5fI8sv7TsiVtbeag19aFsoiirVVTamCZ3pQNYUf hPBmTFTIZuDEhD3hJL3sy8Eb5hqPbs8wcyxLLX1G5X30orb9Cz5A23ta3neEXi1XfY Blttel9MQyqVF/F3EVsgxO74g1N66somMDaUPL3TclzXZOONnhTfkSc/9bTe62pAwd gpRKZfjQgIMMA== Received: from zmstore.fws.fr (zmstore.fws.fr [10.29.3.15]) by zmproxy.fws.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26F2A8B79CF for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:31 +0200 (CEST) Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:40:30 +0200 (CEST) From: Daniel Berteaud To: Proxmox VE user list Message-ID: <189993915.79661.1595497230968.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> In-Reply-To: <1595496811.im826y29fq.astroid@nora.none> References: <1110267368.76036.1595436034847.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> <1595486387.pi9zv7y79a.astroid@nora.none> <141180690.77175.1595487181182.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> <3ce2e15f-9b92-64ce-af55-a21fa46dc5d6@gmail.com> <1595496811.im826y29fq.astroid@nora.none> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Originating-IP: [10.29.1.17] X-Mailer: Zimbra 8.8.15_GA_3955 (ZimbraWebClient - GC83 (Linux)/8.8.15_GA_3953) Thread-Topic: PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? Thread-Index: wyolTMZEugELvTKy1SSWjBRNMZHf5w== X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.032 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address DKIM_SIGNED 0.1 Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid DKIM_VALID -0.1 Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature DKIM_VALID_AU -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain DKIM_VALID_EF -0.1 Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from envelope-from domain 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: Re: [PVE-User] PBS : is dirty-bitmap really accurate ? X-BeenThere: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE user list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 09:40:33 -0000 ----- Le 23 Juil 20, =C3=A0 11:34, Fabian Gr=C3=BCnbichler f.gruenbichler@p= roxmox.com a =C3=A9crit : > also a possible candidate. trim/discard of course changes the blocks and > thus dirties the bitmap. >=20 Indeed, I do have a daily fstrim job running on all my Linux guests (and no= t on the PfSense one), that could explain it. So it would mean we have to c= hoose between thin prov + reclaiming unused space, or efficient dirty bitma= p ... I'll run some test with a weekly fstrim instead of daily. Cheers, Daniel --=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ ] =09 Daniel Berteaud=20 FIREWALL-SERVICES SAS, La s=C3=A9curit=C3=A9 des r=C3=A9seaux=20 Soci=C3=A9t=C3=A9 de Services en Logiciels Libres=20 T=C3=A9l : +33.5 56 64 15 32=20 Matrix: @dani:fws.fr=20 [ https://www.firewall-services.com/ | https://www.firewall-services.com ]