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 B86F392A5A for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:19:20 +0100 (CET) Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 99F4E8216 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:19:20 +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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTPS for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:19:20 +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 D67D445DB8 for ; Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:19:19 +0100 (CET) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 14:19:18 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:110.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/110.0 Content-Language: en-GB To: Proxmox VE development discussion , Aaron Lauterer References: <20230214081347.4012305-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> From: Thomas Lamprecht In-Reply-To: <20230214081347.4012305-1-a.lauterer@proxmox.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0 AWL 0.121 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 -0.345 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: Tue, 14 Feb 2023 13:19:20 -0000 On 14/02/2023 09:13, Aaron Lauterer wrote: > By switching from 'ceph osd tree' to the 'ceph osd df tree' mon API > equivalent , we get the same data structure with more information per the change looks almost too neat for using a completely different command, a bit fishy, but hey, if it works (roughly as fast) as the other one its fine to me. > OSD. One of them is the number of PGs stored on that OSD. > did you benchmark the both to compare for any bigger runtime difference? E.g., some loop with a few thousands rados mon_command calls in perl for each using HiRes timer to measure total loop time and compare? I'd not care for a few percent, but would be good to know if this is order of magnitudes slower - which I'd not expect, but its to easy to check to not do so IMO.