https://tracker.ceph.com/https://tracker.ceph.com/favicon.ico2022-04-04T12:53:00ZCeph CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2139772022-04-04T12:53:00ZVenky Shankarvshankar@redhat.com
<ul><li><strong>Tracker</strong> changed from <i>Bug</i> to <i>Feature</i></li><li><strong>Assignee</strong> set to <i>Jos Collin</i></li><li><strong>Target version</strong> set to <i>v18.0.0</i></li><li><strong>Backport</strong> set to <i>quincy, pacific</i></li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2141952022-04-07T10:05:09ZJos Collin
<ul><li><strong>Description</strong> updated (<a title="View differences" href="/journals/214195/diff?detail_id=226779">diff</a>)</li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2194002022-07-01T04:08:01ZJos Collin
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Closed</i></li></ul><p>Based on my discussion with Greg, I'm closing this ticket. Because the issue that the customer reported in BZ<sup><a href="#fn1">1</a></sup> is pagination and the tracker [2] is meant to resolve that issue. As per our discussion, the goal the customer has is to see all the clients and providing the limit option still restricts the number of clients which doesn't really solve the customer's issue.</p>
<p>[2] <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197</a></p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198032022-07-06T05:52:25ZVenky Shankarvshankar@redhat.com
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Closed</i> to <i>New</i></li></ul><p>Jos Collin wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Based on my discussion with Greg, I'm closing this ticket. Because the issue that the customer reported in BZ<sup><a href="#fn1">1</a></sup> is pagination and the tracker [2] is meant to resolve that issue. As per our discussion, the goal the customer has is to see all the clients and providing the limit option still restricts the number of clients which doesn't really solve the customer's issue.</p>
<p>[2] <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I disagree closing this tracker. The use of limit and order-by is to allow the user to list client according to a field (say descending order of cap hit ratio) and limit this by top N (say, 10) clients. Ins't that useful? With pagination, users would be able to scroll and view the entire client list, however, IMO, its useful to provide the user a way to sort and limit based on a particular field.</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198502022-07-06T23:08:39ZGreg Farnumgfarnum@redhat.com
<ul></ul><p>Can't fs top already change the sort order? I thought that was done in Neeraj's first tranche of improvements.</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198612022-07-07T05:15:07ZJos Collin
<ul></ul><p>Greg Farnum wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can't fs top already change the sort order? I thought that was done in Neeraj's first tranche of improvements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another thing to notice here:<br />Before Neeraj's changes (first tranche of improvements), cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage. But that order doesn't exist anymore as it displays clients separately for each Filesystem now (say fs groups). That seems deviating from the original goal of having cephfs-top (highest resources usage on top).</p>
<p>As we are implementing top(1) like features for cephfs-top, top(1) always displays processes in the descending order of CPU usage. The 'f' menu in top(1) is just for selecting fields to display (Fields Management). As a result, it doesn't change the sort order in top(1) it's always descending order of CPU usage. So is it worth implementing for cephfs-top?</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198652022-07-07T08:00:34ZNeeraj Pratap Singh
<ul></ul><p>Venky Shankar wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Jos Collin wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Based on my discussion with Greg, I'm closing this ticket. Because the issue that the customer reported in BZ<sup><a href="#fn1">1</a></sup> is pagination and the tracker [2] is meant to resolve that issue. As per our discussion, the goal the customer has is to see all the clients and providing the limit option still restricts the number of clients which doesn't really solve the customer's issue.</p>
<p>[2] <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55197</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>I disagree closing this tracker. The use of limit and order-by is to allow the user to list client according to a field (say descending order of cap hit ratio) and limit this by top N (say, 10) clients. Ins't that useful? With pagination, users would be able to scroll and view the entire client list, however, IMO, its useful to provide the user a way to sort and limit based on a particular field.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I think choosing the field based on which the sorting needs to be done will be taken care of by <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463</a> and desc order can be kept as default.But the order-by can handle if someone wants it to be in another order.</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198662022-07-07T08:03:20ZNeeraj Pratap Singh
<ul></ul><p>Jos Collin wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Greg Farnum wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can't fs top already change the sort order? I thought that was done in Neeraj's first tranche of improvements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another thing to notice here:<br />Before Neeraj's changes (first tranche of improvements), cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage. But that order doesn't exist anymore as it displays clients separately for each Filesystem now (say fs groups). That seems deviating from the original goal of having cephfs-top (highest resources usage on top).</p>
<p>As we are implementing top(1) like features for cephfs-top, top(1) always displays processes in the descending order of CPU usage. The 'f' menu in top(1) is just for selecting fields to display (Fields Management). As a result, it doesn't change the sort order in top(1) it's always descending. So is it worth implementing for cephfs-top?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage.Venky mentioned the client connection order,see the description of <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463</a></p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2198692022-07-07T09:50:19ZJos Collin
<ul></ul><p>Neeraj Pratap Singh wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Jos Collin wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Greg Farnum wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can't fs top already change the sort order? I thought that was done in Neeraj's first tranche of improvements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another thing to notice here:<br />Before Neeraj's changes (first tranche of improvements), cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage. But that order doesn't exist anymore as it displays clients separately for each Filesystem now (say fs groups). That seems deviating from the original goal of having cephfs-top (highest resources usage on top).</p>
<p>As we are implementing top(1) like features for cephfs-top, top(1) always displays processes in the descending order of CPU usage. The 'f' menu in top(1) is just for selecting fields to display (Fields Management). As a result, it doesn't change the sort order in top(1) it's always descending. So is it worth implementing for cephfs-top?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>I don't think cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage.Venky mentioned the client connection order,see the description of <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55463</a></p>
</blockquote>
<p>There is no point in having a cephfs-top tool, if it doesn't display the top clients. As per top(1) it should be a constant field say wsp(MB/s), IMO. Then if Fields Management is there, then the user can add/remove fields. Still the Fields Management doesn't make sense for lesser number of fields that cephfs-top has (only 20 fields, which the screen accommodates mostly).</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2202572022-07-13T04:50:43ZVenky Shankarvshankar@redhat.com
<ul></ul><p>Having a `sort-by-field` option is handy for the point I mentioned in <a class="external" href="https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121#note-4">https://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121#note-4</a>. The `limit` functionality is kind of closely tied with `sort-by` (using `limit` without `sort-by` does not really makes sense).</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2202592022-07-13T04:52:04ZVenky Shankarvshankar@redhat.com
<ul><li><strong>Related to</strong> <i><a class="issue tracker-2 status-10 priority-4 priority-default closed" href="/issues/55463">Feature #55463</a>: cephfs-top: allow users to chose sorting order</i> added</li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2213912022-07-27T13:30:10ZJos Collin
<ul></ul><p>Jos Collin wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Greg Farnum wrote:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Can't fs top already change the sort order? I thought that was done in Neeraj's first tranche of improvements.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Another thing to notice here:<br />Before Neeraj's changes (first tranche of improvements), cephfs-top was displaying the clients in the descending order of resource usage. But that order doesn't exist anymore as it displays clients separately for each Filesystem now (say fs groups). That seems deviating from the original goal of having cephfs-top (highest resources usage on top).</p>
<p>As we are implementing top(1) like features for cephfs-top, top(1) always displays processes in the descending order of CPU usage. The 'f' menu in top(1) is just for selecting fields to display (Fields Management). As a result, it doesn't change the sort order in top(1) it's always descending order of CPU usage. So is it worth implementing for cephfs-top?</p>
</blockquote>
<p>My understanding was wrong here. There is an 's' command to reset the default sort field.</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2242652022-08-25T12:30:19ZVenky Shankarvshankar@redhat.com
<ul><li><strong>Assignee</strong> changed from <i>Jos Collin</i> to <i>Neeraj Pratap Singh</i></li></ul><p>Neeraj is working on this.</p> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2256592022-09-15T04:41:34ZNeeraj Pratap Singh
<ul><li><strong>Pull request ID</strong> set to <i>48111</i></li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2256912022-09-15T10:29:13ZNeeraj Pratap Singh
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>New</i> to <i>Fix Under Review</i></li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2279642022-11-04T03:25:09ZJos Collin
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Fix Under Review</i> to <i>Pending Backport</i></li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2279652022-11-04T03:51:03ZBackport Bot
<ul><li><strong>Copied to</strong> <i><a class="issue tracker-9 status-3 priority-4 priority-default closed" href="/issues/57970">Backport #57970</a>: quincy: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-by</i> added</li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2279672022-11-04T03:51:11ZBackport Bot
<ul><li><strong>Copied to</strong> <i><a class="issue tracker-9 status-3 priority-4 priority-default closed" href="/issues/57971">Backport #57971</a>: pacific: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-by</i> added</li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2279692022-11-04T03:51:13ZBackport Bot
<ul><li><strong>Tags</strong> set to <i>backport_processed</i></li></ul> CephFS - Feature #55121: cephfs-top: new options to limit and order-byhttps://tracker.ceph.com/issues/55121?journal_id=2331652023-03-14T16:47:26ZNeeraj Pratap Singh
<ul><li><strong>Status</strong> changed from <i>Pending Backport</i> to <i>Resolved</i></li></ul>