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 689E173B24 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:24:30 +0200 (CEST) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 564FA2EE6A for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:24:00 +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 9BC4C2EE59 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:23:58 +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 66D1240ED5 for ; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:23:58 +0200 (CEST) To: Thomas Lamprecht , Proxmox VE development discussion References: <20210707084747.1785337-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com> From: Dominik Csapak Message-ID: Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 13:23:56 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.669 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 11:24:30 -0000 On 7/7/21 12:19 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote: > On 07.07.21 10:47, Dominik Csapak wrote: >> we incorrectly used 'total' as 100% of the to recovered objects here, >> but that contains the total number of *bytes*. >> >> rename 'toRecover' to better reflect its meaning and use that as >> 100% of the objects. >> >> reported by a user: >> https://forum.proxmox.com/threads/bug-ceph-recovery-bar-not-showing-percentage.91782/ >> > > please note if this would need to be backported too. yes, i think this would be good to backport > >> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak >> --- >> www/manager6/ceph/Status.js | 8 ++++---- >> 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js b/www/manager6/ceph/Status.js >> 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', { >> let unhealthy = degraded + unfound + misplaced; >> // update recovery >> if (pgmap.recovering_objects_per_sec !== undefined || unhealthy > 0) { >> - let toRecover = pgmap.misplaced_total || pgmap.unfound_total || pgmap.degraded_total || 0; >> - if (toRecover === 0) { >> + let totalRecovery = pgmap.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 `toRecoverObjects` > or the like i read the code and thought 'toRecover' means objects that need recovery, 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 ? > > 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 but are only given if the respective category has objects that need recovery > >> + if (totalRecovery === 0) { >> return; // FIXME: unexpected return and leaves things possible visible when it shouldn't? >> } >> - let recovered = toRecover - unhealthy || 0; >> + let recovered = totalRecovery - unhealthy || 0; >> let speed = pgmap.recovering_bytes_per_sec || 0; >> >> - let recoveryRatio = recovered / total; >> + let recoveryRatio = recovered / totalRecovery; >> let txt = `${(recoveryRatio * 100).toFixed(2)}%`; >> if (speed > 0) { >> let obj_per_sec = speed / (4 * 1024 * 1024); // 4 MiB per Object >> >