From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <f.ebner@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 83378689E2
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from firstgate.proxmox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by firstgate.proxmox.com (Proxmox) with ESMTP id 7101010C6E
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:11 +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 D931010C5F
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:10 +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 A87C04469D
for <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>; Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:10 +0200 (CEST)
To: Thomas Lamprecht <t.lamprecht@proxmox.com>,
Proxmox VE development discussion <pve-devel@lists.proxmox.com>
References: <20210907093055.39627-1-f.ebner@proxmox.com>
<c9d43541-02c9-3480-b7e9-333aca6e27ac@proxmox.com>
From: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
Message-ID: <fdef11c3-d22a-9869-bbb8-dafc825cdb89@proxmox.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 10:03:05 +0200
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101
Thunderbird/78.13.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <c9d43541-02c9-3480-b7e9-333aca6e27ac@proxmox.com>
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 1.358 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 -1.975 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
URIBL_BLOCKED 0.001 ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more
information. [zfs.pm]
Subject: Re: [pve-devel] [PATCH storage] fix #3610: properly build ZFS
detail tree
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: Fri, 10 Sep 2021 08:03:41 -0000
Am 09.09.21 um 18:24 schrieb Thomas Lamprecht:
> On 07.09.21 11:30, Fabian Ebner wrote:
>> Previously, top-level vdevs like log or special were wrongly added as
>> children of the previous outer vdev instead of the root.
>>
>> Fix it by also showing the vdev with the same name as the pool and
>> start counting from level 1 (the pool itself serves as the root and
>> should be the only one with level 0). This results in the same kind
>> of structure as in PBS and (except for the root) zpool status itself.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Fabian Ebner <f.ebner@proxmox.com>
>> ---
>> PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm | 4 ++--
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm b/PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm
>> index 0418794..60077c4 100644
>> --- a/PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm
>> +++ b/PVE/API2/Disks/ZFS.pm
>> @@ -240,8 +240,8 @@ __PACKAGE__->register_method ({
>> $config = 1;
>> } elsif ($config && $line =~ m/^(\s+)(\S+)\s*(\S+)?(?:\s+(\S+)\s+(\S+)\s+(\S+))?\s*(.*)$/) {
>> my ($space, $name, $state, $read, $write, $cksum, $msg) = ($1, $2, $3, $4, $5, $6, $7);
>> - if ($name ne "NAME" and $name ne $param->{name}) {
>> - my $lvl= int(length($space)/2); # two spaces per level
>> + if ($name ne "NAME") {
>> + my $lvl = int(length($space) / 2) + 1; # two spaces per level
>> my $vdev = {
>> name => $name,
>> msg => $msg,
>>
>
> hmm, I get the idea and can see how one could assert that this is more correct,
> but as it is presented it'd be a bit more confusing too, IMO, as it does not
> matches the zpool status CLI output anymore.
>
> I.e., the following (real):
>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>> zpt ONLINE 0 0 0
>> mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi3 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi4 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> logs
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi5 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
>
> Is suggested to be (adapted):
>> NAME STATE READ WRITE CKSUM
>> zpt ONLINE
>> zpt ONLINE 0 0 0
>> mirror-0 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi3 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi4 ONLINE 0 0 0
>> logs
>> scsi-0QEMU_QEMU_HARDDISK_drive-scsi5 ONLINE 0 0 0
>
Is 'logs' aligned with the outer 'zpt' or the inner 'zpt'? It's intended
to be the inner one, but in the mail it looks like the outer one to me.
>
> How about hiding the root in the devices tree and add a line to the
> KV grid above instead? E.g., something that would then render:
>
> Pool <ID> (<STATUS>)
>
> That can be a GUI change only, did not really checked implementation details, but
> I'd like to clear that up before applying this patch.
>
I suppose that should be done for PBS too then? And PVE should switch to
using the ZFSDetail window from widget-toolkit?