From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (firstgate.proxmox.com [IPv6:2a01:7e0:0:424::9])
	by lore.proxmox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C49371FF165
	for <inbox@lore.proxmox.com>; Thu, 22 May 2025 16:33:19 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id DB70737B56;
	Thu, 22 May 2025 16:33:20 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <08806611-1b0f-4941-801f-5ac826ab756a@proxmox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2025 16:32:47 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
From: Fiona Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
To: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
References: <20250514093658.21308-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
 <20250514093658.21308-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <20250514093658.21308-2-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results:  0
 AWL -0.033 Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
 BAYES_00                 -1.9 Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1%
 DMARC_MISSING             0.1 Missing DMARC policy
 KAM_DMARC_STATUS 0.01 Test Rule for DKIM or SPF Failure with Strict Alignment
 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-devel] [PATCH v2 storage 2/2] rbd plugin: status: use
 actual storage usage as basis for calculation
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>
Reply-To: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Errors-To: pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com
Sender: "pve-devel" <pve-devel-bounces@lists.proxmox.com>

Am 14.05.25 um 11:36 schrieb Fiona Ebner:
> As reported in the enterprise support, the usage percentage presented
> by Proxmox VE can be quite different from what Ceph itself shows when
> compression is used on the pool. The reason is that Proxmox VE used
> the 'stored' value as a basis for the calculation which is the amount
> of logically stored user data, i.e. before compression. In the context
> of presenting storage usage, this is not the best choice and e.g. in
> the ZFS plugin 'used' is preferred over 'logicalused'. Switch to using
> 'bytes_used' as the basis for the calculation to better match
> expectations.

Referencing this reply to v1 here so it doesn't get overlooked:
https://lore.proxmox.com/pve-devel/525845252.15003.1747220844735@webmail.proxmox.com/


_______________________________________________
pve-devel mailing list
pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com
https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel