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 1FD778AA52 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:04:58 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id F3A141E58A for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:04:27 +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 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:04:26 +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 A4A4244AF5 for ; Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:04:26 +0200 (CEST) Message-ID: Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 09:04:26 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:106.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/106.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Stefan Sterz , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20221020071704.46578-1-s.sterz@proxmox.com> <47cbf07a-d82f-618e-7d11-28d49ebdffb6@proxmox.com> <8f6f8f15-31bd-f6c5-44e3-09b64e749761@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <8f6f8f15-31bd-f6c5-44e3-09b64e749761@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL -0.034 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 v3 1/2] api: ceph: add applications of each pool to the lspools endpoint 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: Fri, 21 Oct 2022 07:04:58 -0000 Am 21/10/2022 um 08:57 schrieb Stefan Sterz: >> out of interest: how expensive is this, did you check the overhead? >> > do you want a specific metric? in my (admittedly small) test setup > (three vm cluster with 4 cores and 4Gib RAM) it is barely noticeable. > the api call takes between 18 and 25ms in both cases for me. > I mean, with a handful of pools you probably won't (or really should not) see any difference >50 ms, that would make it a hard case arguing. Just wondered if many pools (e.g., [10, 100, 1000]) actually increase this O(n) or if that falls in the noise of the rados monitor query overhead. I don't expect that is significant, just wondered if you already checked and got some info on that.