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 D1B1492BDA for ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 ; 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 , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20230214081347.4012305-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: 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 List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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.