Unable to set 4 GB of service memory limits, only get 3.75 or 4.25 GB, also allows double memory than system available
-
Given that this is just the upper limit and even then the allocated limit might end up slightly different anyways for the real container, it doesn't make too much sense to give exact values.
-
Maybe when we rework that bit in the UI or the slider widget, we can add something more explicit, but given that the actual value-add here is close to nothing, I think we have other things to spend time on for the moment. I get the ocd trigger for such values though...
-
Given that this is just the upper limit and even then the allocated limit might end up slightly different anyways for the real container, it doesn't make too much sense to give exact values.
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
Given that this is just the upper limit and even then the allocated limit might end up slightly different anyways for the real container,
I don't fully understand this.
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
it doesn't make too much sense to give exact values.
Maybe so (although I still don't really understand why not), but it does make sense to improve what is currently really rather bad UX.
Myself and quite a few others (see e.g. here and here) have I think mentioned the difficulty in selecting the values we want quite a few times previously and it still bugs me every time I have to do it.
Perhaps just add some little up/ down arrows the allow it to be moved in small increments or something?
Either way, whilst I agree it's not that important in the overall scheme of things, it remains frustrating, and in contrast to the rest of Cloudron which generally has a really nice smooth UX
-
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
Given that this is just the upper limit and even then the allocated limit might end up slightly different anyways for the real container,
I don't fully understand this.
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
it doesn't make too much sense to give exact values.
Maybe so (although I still don't really understand why not), but it does make sense to improve what is currently really rather bad UX.
Myself and quite a few others (see e.g. here and here) have I think mentioned the difficulty in selecting the values we want quite a few times previously and it still bugs me every time I have to do it.
Perhaps just add some little up/ down arrows the allow it to be moved in small increments or something?
Either way, whilst I agree it's not that important in the overall scheme of things, it remains frustrating, and in contrast to the rest of Cloudron which generally has a really nice smooth UX
@jdaviescoates said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
Perhaps just add some little up/ down arrows the allow it to be moved in small increments or something?
Very good advice... up/down will be much more better
-
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
Given that this is just the upper limit and even then the allocated limit might end up slightly different anyways for the real container,
I don't fully understand this.
@nebulon said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
it doesn't make too much sense to give exact values.
Maybe so (although I still don't really understand why not), but it does make sense to improve what is currently really rather bad UX.
Myself and quite a few others (see e.g. here and here) have I think mentioned the difficulty in selecting the values we want quite a few times previously and it still bugs me every time I have to do it.
Perhaps just add some little up/ down arrows the allow it to be moved in small increments or something?
Either way, whilst I agree it's not that important in the overall scheme of things, it remains frustrating, and in contrast to the rest of Cloudron which generally has a really nice smooth UX
@jdaviescoates said in Redis Memory Limit: possibility to write value:
Perhaps just add some little up/ down arrows the allow it to be moved in small increments or something?
I like this idea too. I am not sure where we picked this bizzare slider from
-
In my CAD software, the sliders can be clicked on, and then you can manually enter a value. The best of both worlds. Maybe we can implement this method.
-
In my CAD software, the sliders can be clicked on, and then you can manually enter a value. The best of both worlds. Maybe we can implement this method.
-
Sure. Uno momento.
-
Front End
I can't upload a MP4 video (less than 1mb). Not enough permission. In the video it shows an alternative method where you can click on the slider and input a value.
Here's a screenshot showing a slider in default state and when it's clicked on.
I found an online website to conver the mp4 to gif!
-
I think most UI points are already touched on in the other forum thread @p44 linked. So lets treat the original thread as the feature request. I will merge this into the other then.
For the memory limit as such, this is just the upper limit and not some memory allocation. Also the limit is half RAM and half swap, thus "doubling" effect. And well, exact values do help probably with OCD triggering, but otherwise it has no real impact for the system itself
-
I think most UI points are already touched on in the other forum thread @p44 linked. So lets treat the original thread as the feature request. I will merge this into the other then.
For the memory limit as such, this is just the upper limit and not some memory allocation. Also the limit is half RAM and half swap, thus "doubling" effect. And well, exact values do help probably with OCD triggering, but otherwise it has no real impact for the system itself
@nebulon said in Unable to set 4 GB of service memory limits, only get 3.75 or 4.25 GB, also allows double memory than system available:
just the upper limit
@nebulon said in Unable to set 4 GB of service memory limits, only get 3.75 or 4.25 GB, also allows double memory than system available:
no real impact for the system itself
I still don't really get this statement you keep repeating.
Surely the upper limit does have a real impact, in that it sets the upper limit, which effects the upper limit of how much RAM an app can use, no?
(and hence the whole point of having the setting in the first place, and why one has to increase the limit when apps keep running out of memory) -
The comment was about the value itself, a couple of megabytes lower or higher won't have any practical impact on the system, especially not if the system has a lot of memory.
@nebulon OK, but in the "Unable to set 4 GB of service memory limits, only get 3.75 or 4.25 GB" example 250MB is more than "a couple", and lots of people don't have lots of RAM as most people are running the cheapest VPS they can.
(although personally I've currently got a server with more RAM than I use and so have given up on my OCD about this and just randomly click any higher number when an app runs out of ram, a better UX is clearly needed and the lack of it causing frustration)
-
I think most UI points are already touched on in the other forum thread @p44 linked. So lets treat the original thread as the feature request. I will merge this into the other then.
For the memory limit as such, this is just the upper limit and not some memory allocation. Also the limit is half RAM and half swap, thus "doubling" effect. And well, exact values do help probably with OCD triggering, but otherwise it has no real impact for the system itself
