From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mykola Golub Subject: Re: ceph osd df Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 17:51:24 +0200 Message-ID: <20150116155123.GA11113@gmail.com> References: <20150110093158.GA2288@gmail.com> <20150111163148.GA2749@gmail.com> <20150112082250.GA31325@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-wi0-f176.google.com ([209.85.212.176]:53525 "EHLO mail-wi0-f176.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751717AbbAPPvY (ORCPT ); Fri, 16 Jan 2015 10:51:24 -0500 Received: by mail-wi0-f176.google.com with SMTP id z2so1347976wiv.3 for ; Fri, 16 Jan 2015 07:51:23 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20150112082250.GA31325@gmail.com> Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, Jan 12, 2015 at 10:22:51AM +0200, Mykola Golub wrote: > On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 09:33:57AM -0800, Sage Weil wrote: > > > 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? > > Note, we already have duplication, at least CrushWrapper::dump_tree() > and OSDMap::print_tree(). I will work on generalization, I think some > tree dumper in CrushWrapper. I have updated the code. https://github.com/ceph/ceph/pull/3347 -- Mykola Golub