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 95BC073C26 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:25:35 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 8528F8252 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:25:05 +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 F2D962FFFF for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:25:04 +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 C46E440EA9 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:25:04 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <526feb38-ec00-0af9-48c0-fc8305d68cef@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:24:46 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:90.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/90.0 Content-Language: en-US To: Dominik Csapak , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210707084747.1785337-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.502 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 12:25:35 -0000 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.j= s >>> 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', { >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let unhealthy =3D degraded + unfound += misplaced; >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 // update recovery >>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (pgmap.recovering_objects_per_sec != =3D=3D undefined || unhealthy > 0) { >>> -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let toRecover =3D pgmap.m= isplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0; >>> -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (toRecover =3D=3D=3D 0= ) { >>> +=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let totalRecovery =3D pgm= ap.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 `t= oRecoverObjects` >> or the like > i read the code and thought 'toRecover' means objects that need recover= y, 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) >=20 > 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 reade= r, for that I'd rather add a short comment, those tend to be a bit more explicit for = subtle stuff. >=20 >> >> Also, why not adding those metrics up? If, misplaced and unfound do no= t have any >> overlap, IIRC, so would def. make sense for those - for degraded I'm n= ot so sure >> about overlap with the other two from top of my head though. >=20 > 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 actual= ly set (computed).