From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
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 D1B1492BDA
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:15:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B5086AA3D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:15:01 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (proxmox-new.maurer-it.com
[94.136.29.106])
(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
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:15:00 +0100 (CET)
Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DF38B471CD
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:14:59 +0100 (CET)
Message-ID: <27365ccf-542c-ff70-2e96-aaf92ea4c66d@proxmox.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 17:14:58 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/102.7.2
Content-Language: en-US
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20230214081347.4012305-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
<e0cec464-00cb-6b52-f718-5f5ad8f10075@proxmox.com>
From: Aaron Lauterer <a.lauterer@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <e0cec464-00cb-6b52-f718-5f5ad8f10075@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.127 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
BAYES_00 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
NICE_REPLY_A -0.345 Looks like a legit reply (A)
SPF_HELO_NONE 0.001 SPF: HELO does not publish an SPF Record
SPF_PASS -0.001 SPF: sender matches SPF record
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [bench.pl]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ceph osd: ui: show PGs per OSD
X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 16:15:31 -0000
Seems like the `osd df tree` call is about 25% slower, plus minus.
Tested on our AMD test cluster that is currently set up with 3 nodes with 4 OSDs
each. 50k iterations.
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9217/s -- -27%
osd-tree 12658/s 37% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9141/s -- -25%
osd-tree 12136/s 33% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 9940/s -- -23%
osd-tree 12987/s 31% --
root@jura1:~# ./bench.pl
Rate osd-df-tree osd-tree
osd-df-tree 8666/s -- -20%
osd-tree 10846/s 25% --
root@jura1:~#
On 2/14/23 14:19, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 14/02/2023 09:13, Aaron Lauterer wrote:
>> By switching from 'ceph osd tree' to the 'ceph osd df tree' mon API
>> equivalent , we get the same data structure with more information per
>
> the change looks almost too neat for using a completely different command,
> a bit fishy, but hey, if it works (roughly as fast) as the other one its
> fine to me.
>
>> OSD. One of them is the number of PGs stored on that OSD.
>>
>
> did you benchmark the both to compare for any bigger runtime difference?
>
> E.g., some loop with a few thousands rados mon_command calls in perl for each
> using HiRes timer to measure total loop time and compare?
>
> I'd not care for a few percent, but would be good to know if this is
> order of magnitudes slower - which I'd not expect, but its to easy to
> check to not do so IMO.