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 D2A6973C35 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:36:48 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id C813784A1 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:36:48 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 022048494 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:36:47 +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 CB85D40C6F for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:36:46 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: <6b3203c3-4282-b085-26a4-132902c27f1e@proxmox.com> Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 14:36:28 +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> <526feb38-ec00-0af9-48c0-fc8305d68cef@proxmox.com> <17ff99b9-ff59-a707-7b0f-e9c90c98333d@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <17ff99b9-ff59-a707-7b0f-e9c90c98333d@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.501 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 12:36:48 -0000 On 07.07.21 14:30, Dominik Csapak wrote: > 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= =2Ejs >>>>> 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=C2=A0 let unhealthy =3D degraded + u= nfound + misplaced; >>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 // update recovery >>>>> =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 if (pgmap.recovering_objects_p= er_sec !=3D=3D undefined || unhealthy > 0) { >>>>> -=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 let toRecover =3D pgmap= =2Emisplaced_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 p= gmap.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 `totalRecover= y` 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 recov= ery, 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 re= ader, for that >> I'd rather add a short comment, those tend to be a bit more explicit f= or subtle stuff. >=20 > ok i'll leave it at 'toRecover' and add a comment what it is in my v2 Adding objects is fine to me though, the basic unit, i.e., size vs. bytes= here, is something that can be encoded in the variable name for dynamic typed l= anguages like JS - but no hard feelings. >> >>> >>>> >>>> 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 act= ually >> set (computed). >> >=20 > no sadly, i tried to check, but i am not so deep into ceph code right n= ow ok, thanks nonetheless.