From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: 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 27B0073C31 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:31:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F41288351 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:30:37 +0200 (CEST) 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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 21CAB8343 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:30:37 +0200 (CEST) Received: from proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by proxmox-new.maurer-it.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A411D40EA9 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:30:36 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210707084747.1785337-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> <526feb38-ec00-0af9-48c0-fc8305d68cef@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak Message-ID: <17ff99b9-ff59-a707-7b0f-e9c90c98333d@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:30:34 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <526feb38-ec00-0af9-48c0-fc8305d68cef@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.668 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 -0.001 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 Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: ceph/Status: fix recovery percentage display X-BeenThere: pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Proxmox VE development discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 12:31:08 -0000 On 7/7/21 2:24 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 07.07.21 13:23, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> On 7/7/21 12:19 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: >>> On 07.07.21 10:47, Dominik Csapak wrote: >>>> diff --git a/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js b/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js >>>> index e92c698b..52563605 100644 >>>> --- a/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js >>>> +++ b/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js >>>> @@ -321,14 +321,14 @@ Ext.define('PVE.node.CephStatus', { >>>>       let unhealthy = degraded + unfound + misplaced; >>>>       // update recovery >>>>       if (pgmap.recovering_objects_per_sec !== undefined || unhealthy > 0) { >>>> -        let toRecover = pgmap.misplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0; >>>> -        if (toRecover === 0) { >>>> +        let totalRecovery = pgmap.misplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0; >>> >>> why change the variable name, `toRecover` was still OK? Or at least I do not see >>> any improvement in making it easier to understand with `totalRecovery` if byte vs. >>> objects where a issue of confusion why not addressing that by using `toRecoverObjects` >>> or the like >> i read the code and thought 'toRecover' means objects that need recovery, but it is not. {misplaced,unfound,degraded}_total each contain >> the total number of objects taking part in the recovery >> (also the ones that are not unhealthy) >> >> maybe 'totalRecoveryObjects' would make more sense ? > > totalRecoveryObjects and toRecoverObjects are so similar that they do not really > convey the difference to me for the confusion you had for any other reader, for that > I'd rather add a short comment, those tend to be a bit more explicit for subtle stuff. ok i'll leave it at 'toRecover' and add a comment what it is in my v2 > >> >>> >>> Also, why not adding those metrics up? If, misplaced and unfound do not have any >>> overlap, IIRC, so would def. make sense for those - for degraded I'm not so sure >>> about overlap with the other two from top of my head though. >> >> they contain all the same number >> src/mon/PGMap.cc:{467,482,498} pool_sum.stats.sum.num_object_copies > > ah yeah true, I remember now again. Do you also know where this is actually > set (computed). > no sadly, i tried to check, but i am not so deep into ceph code right now