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 C907192D19 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:23 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id AADA81A96F for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:23 +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)) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:23 +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 D1F8247243 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:22 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: <5eb9fadb-202d-9a1e-6370-e115c0e28915@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 10:20:21 +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> <27365ccf-542c-ff70-2e96-aaf92ea4c66d@proxmox.com> <2563677d-2cf5-16ab-3261-ce270bc8ff0c@proxmox.com> From: Aaron Lauterer In-Reply-To: <2563677d-2cf5-16ab-3261-ce270bc8ff0c@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.129 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 -0.35 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] 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: Wed, 15 Feb 2023 09:20:23 -0000 On 2/15/23 07:18, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > Am 14/02/2023 um 17:14 schrieb Aaron Lauterer: >> 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:~# > > Many thanks for the insight, so significantly more than noise but far from problematic. Yep, and we don't call it all the time, AFAIU when opening the OSD panel and on manual "Reload"s. I took another look at the Ceph API but couldn't find a call that might give us that information as well to check if it would be cheaper to call.