gemmellr commented on pull request #3812: URL: https://github.com/apache/activemq-artemis/pull/3812#issuecomment-952172697
> > > @gemmellr > > > Since the existing functionality uses 'max-disk-usage' as a name, I think something like 'min-disk-...' would be more consistent than 'min-free-disk-bytes' is. I wouldn't put the 'bytes' units in the name, allowing for more friendly unit-specifying strings to also be supplied, e.g. as is supported for the "global-max-size". > > Agree. I actually thought unit-specified strings would be better too. About the name, does "min-free-disk" sound better? > I was suggesting consistency/alignment between 'max-disk-...' and 'min-disk-...' so 'min-free-disk' misses the mark there slightly for me. Perhaps 'min-disk-free'. (Obviously these often arent 'disks' these days...but its still a generally used name for storage) > > If allowing for units, a different route and obvious simplification to avoid needing to consider any conflicting 'max usage' and 'min available' configurations would be to instead just extend what the existing 'max-disk-usage' can do and allow it to specify the actual usage amount rather than a percentage of the total. > > This is of course a simpler way. However, it will force users to make a calculation of the actual usage amount. Not really an arduous task though, specfying a known amount less than a known amount. >. Also, users will need to update this value every time their disk size increases. With "min-free-disk", users don't have to do those. So I still vote for "min-free-disk" as a better choice. > This is clearly true, hence I'm also happy to have both. Personally I would probably change the max usage bits as discussed either way. (I would say though that the typical response to hitting such a value, which shouldnt really be getting hit, is often not going to be changing the size of storage). > > To handle that I guess I would leave the existing max-disk-usage default to retain existing behaviour, and remove any default for the new 'min available' config. That way you know it was configured explicitly if it is set, and we could choose to document that it takes precedence over the max-disk-usage setting, i.e they can choose to use 'max-disk-usage' or to instead use 'min-disk-...' > > I think this approach is the optimal one now. I'll implement it. If I'm stuck somewhere, I'll ping you. > > Do you agree? Seems a reasonable approach to me. Not sure what others think. @clebertsuconic @jbertram ? -- This is an automated message from the Apache Git Service. To respond to the message, please log on to GitHub and use the URL above to go to the specific comment. To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For queries about this service, please contact Infrastructure at: [email protected]
