On Sun, 11 Jan 2015, Mykola Golub wrote: > On Sat, Jan 10, 2015 at 10:39:41AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > > > I wonder if we should try to standardize the table formats. 'ceph osd > > tree' current looks like > > > > # id weight type name up/down reweight > > -1 3 root default > > -2 3 host maetl > > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 > > 1 1 osd.1 up 1 > > 2 1 osd.2 up 1 > > > > That is, lowercase headers (with a # header prefix). It's also not using > > TableFormatter (which it predates). > > > > It's also pretty sloppy with the precision and formatting: > > > > $ ./ceph osd crush reweight osd.1 > > .0001 > > reweighted item id 1 name 'osd.1' to 0.0001 in crush map > > $ ./ceph osd tree > > # id weight type name up/down reweight > > -1 2 root default > > -2 2 host maetl > > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 > > 1 9.155e-05 osd.1 up 1 > > 2 1 osd.2 up 1 > > $ ./ceph osd crush reweight osd.1 .001 > > reweighted item id 1 name 'osd.1' to 0.001 in crush map > > $ ./ceph osd tree > > # id weight type name up/down reweight > > -1 2.001 root default > > -2 2.001 host maetl > > 0 1 osd.0 up 1 > > 1 0.0009918 osd.1 up 1 > > 2 1 osd.2 up 1 > > > > Given that the *actual* precision of these weights is 16.16 bit > > fixed-point, that's a lower bound of .00001. I'm not sure we want to > > print 1.00000 all the time, though? Although I suppose it's better than > > > > 1 > > 2 > > .00001 > > > > In a perfect world I suppose TableFormatter (or whatever) would adjust the > > precision of all printed values to the highest precision needed by any > > item in the list, but maybe just sticking to 5 digits for > > everything is best for simplicity. > > > > Anyway, any interest in making a single stringify_weight() helper and > > fixing up 'ceph osd tree' to also use it and TableFormatter too? :) > > Sure :) Thanks for the comments and suggestions. I will come with > update. > > BTW, wouldn't disk usage in bytes (size used avail) be useful in this > output too? I.e something like below: > > # id weight reweight size used avail %util var > 0 1.00000 1.00000 886G 171G 670G 19.30 1.00 Yeah, sure! By the way I took another look and I'm not sure that it is worth duplicating all of the tree logic for a tree view. It seems easier to either include this optionally in the tree output (the utilzation calc is simpler than the tree traversal stack)... or generalize it somehow? sage -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
