> Sounds reasonable. We just need to find a way to add new values
> in a compatible way.
Last time in 2013, we had added a new rrd "pve2.3-vm/"
https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2013-January/005612.html
Le ven. 23 oct. 2020 à 09:50, Dietmar Maurer a écrit :
>
> > I would like also to
On 24.10.20 15:46, Alexandre Derumier wrote:
>> Sounds reasonable. We just need to find a way to add new values
>> in a compatible way.
>
> Last time in 2013, we had added a new rrd "pve2.3-vm/"
> https://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/2013-January/005612.html
that'd drop all old statistic
Hi,
upon closer inspection and more testing on different systems, I also
discovered more issues with the current implementation itself. Hence
registers can vary on model bases for some vendors, it is clearly not
the correct way to map registers. The current implementation
even interprets entirely
This replaces a locally maintained hardware map in
get_wear_leveling_info() by commonly used register names of
smartmontool. Smartmontool maintains a labeled register database that
contains a majority of drives (including versions). The current lookup
produces false estimates, this approach hopeful
