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 7E744655AD for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:21:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 6E12C271C7 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:21:14 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail-wr1-x42d.google.com (mail-wr1-x42d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::42d]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 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 9CB98271BC for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:21:13 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail-wr1-x42d.google.com with SMTP id a15so4433696wrh.10 for ; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:21:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BfhlHSrAeTM7b2ZHktCmZ7KKgBWnlaZ7CeCFEvNAjMo=; b=oP9CpnmZOouR3AJO+gn0+frR60/x+S0PjaQKw5Ed23ytGfbwky4lpYkK9sV7RYGDLD Djzp3BriKWl3T8bgAieI67Q/ajH/avnUoocsu2PW3vtdIqvbp/pVAP9svvKcAN6HvGzp oHZ07WPl1IvyqAV8uiLt7vA42W6QQh9LIGxEwvQx/EtG+fNkSp5aPJiisfRfqNNNvy/z CvkbWlbGUFJiaIHLbf0JYsY9pJb+5qquVcnKy5qV6Yr6Q8E2Mxl5u7qG5KinYyOOvkGT zmkBb6NJitmONpu09XGfScaV32XxqKZXUoBZNgmM6PjaId+OdD+/uJBVoXYrHBIlss5p QSVQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=BfhlHSrAeTM7b2ZHktCmZ7KKgBWnlaZ7CeCFEvNAjMo=; b=N9ywd/kHfwS/6wWUg25nXpWdiAV2kdmHNHTQAuQdONJS6GYFSHDPvP6Ny2LH2SuFRv zey3ve8tMYdSTefs5lttnqXv22TAeG14ysRfIyJbKUOySLpjamK9TRW93OoTqDWNr1L2 DhP6X33xWckpalN7ryMgT37zu47inWvmh4D++NWWdql6/cZxGIHPJxfD0nRKstYTmbAQ rwicTEJXv71S2rrZFDxM6DZZNfoEMsI7jt1ur0dqYoCUP+BEm5G6WPjrSzjt9OhjIVYD YN3go86HtTT/u93ctrIbXRQ8AcGQXjR5jo8oX0d9M49g0IXgLrP+YX5oOlykIX1TK4F9 4eqw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531XdrycOSbgmTiDPyOThkgsIw83EJ9w6GUuPE4gFa4Fd6ZtNtAM kgoctrNEy4HQcM/fg92z0L/b0xz0 X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxsrEUiPZxBRfqvNY2Pgq3Sdgh4r0aGJh81kzAM2039N2350vMO3e4k6bInBa+SlD3QP5OKYQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1190:: with SMTP id g16mr3040111wrx.286.1595496066878; Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:21:06 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.10.0.147] (183.red-88-5-217.dynamicip.rima-tde.net. [88.5.217.183]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d201sm2596750wmd.34.2020.07.23.02.21.05 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 23 Jul 2020 02:21:06 -0700 (PDT) To: pve-user@lists.proxmox.com References: <1110267368.76036.1595436034847.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> <1595486387.pi9zv7y79a.astroid@nora.none> <141180690.77175.1595487181182.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> From: Jorge Boncompte Message-ID: <3ce2e15f-9b92-64ce-af55-a21fa46dc5d6@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 23 Jul 2020 11:00:55 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:68.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/68.10.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <141180690.77175.1595487181182.JavaMail.zimbra@fws.fr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: es-ES Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 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 FREEMAIL_FROM 0.001 Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider NICE_REPLY_A -1.703 Looks like a legit reply (A) RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE -0.0001 Sender listed at https://www.dnswl.org/, no 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 09:21:14 -0000 El 23/7/20 a las 8:53, Daniel Berteaud escribió: > ----- Le 23 Juil 20, à 8:43, Fabian Grünbichler f.gruenbichler@proxmox.com a écrit : > >> possibly you haven't upgraded to pve-qemu-kvm 5.0-11 (or your VM hasn't >> been restarted yet since the upgrade): >> >> https://git.proxmox.com/?p=pve-qemu.git;a=commit;h=f257cc05f4fbf772cad3231021b3ce7587127a1b > > I'm running pve-qemu-kvm 5.0.0-11, and all the implied VM have been either (cold) rebooted, or migrated. > >> >> the bitmap has a granularity of 4MB, so depending on the activity inside >> you can see quite a bit of amplification. also writing and then >> zeroing/reverting again to the old content would leave a mark in the >> bitmap without permanently changing the contents. >> > > Yes, I'd expect some amplification, but not that much. For my Zabbix server, it's nearly canceling all the benefit of using a dirty bitmap. > One thing I've noted, is that I get expected values at least for one guest, running PfSense (where I get ~150MB of dirty blocks each days). Most of my other VM are Linux, I'll check if it could be related to the atime update or something Hi, does the dirty-bitmap take somehow into account block discarding and zeroing? Because the other thing I would look for in this case is for a fstrim firing every day. > > Cheers, > Daniel >