From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
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 B78DE73A92
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:19:51 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id B50822DEA5
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:19:51 +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 DBCB92DE97
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:19:50 +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 AB70940EAB
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:19:50 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <ea9592f6-630f-133b-1f1e-a9f2dd1ba43a@proxmox.com>
Date: Wed, 7 Jul 2021 12:19:32 +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: Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>,
Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
References: <20210707084747.1785337-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
From: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>
In-Reply-To: <20210707084747.1785337-1-d.csapak@proxmox.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-SPAM-LEVEL: Spam detection results: 0
AWL 0.505 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 <pve-devel.lists.proxmox.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/options/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.proxmox.com/pipermail/pve-devel/>
List-Post: <mailto:pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
List-Help: <mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.proxmox.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pve-devel>,
<mailto:pve-devel-request@lists.proxmox.com?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2021 10:19:51 -0000
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.
> Signed-off-by: Dominik Csapak <d.csapak@proxmox.com>
> ---
> 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
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.
> + 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
>