[pve-devel] [PATCH manager] ui: ceph/Status: fix recovery percentage display

[Dominik Csapak]

On 7/7/21 2:24 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
> On 07.07.21 13:23, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>> On 7/7/21 12:19 PM, Thomas Lamprecht wrote:
>>> On 07.07.21 10:47, Dominik Csapak wrote:
>>>> 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 ?
> 
> totalRecoveryObjects and toRecoverObjects are so similar that they do not really
> convey the difference to me for the confusion you had for any other reader, for that
> I'd rather add a short comment, those tend to be a bit more explicit for subtle stuff.

ok i'll leave it at 'toRecover' and add a comment what it is in my v2
> 
>>
>>>
>>> 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
> 
> ah yeah true, I remember now again. Do you also know where this is actually
> set (computed).
> 

no sadly, i tried to check, but i am not so deep into ceph code right now