From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Mykola Golub Subject: Re: ceph osd df Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2015 10:22:51 +0200 Message-ID: <20150112082250.GA31325@gmail.com> References: <20150110093158.GA2288@gmail.com> <20150111163148.GA2749@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Received: from mail-lb0-f181.google.com ([209.85.217.181]:36859 "EHLO mail-lb0-f181.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751376AbbALIXF (ORCPT ); Mon, 12 Jan 2015 03:23:05 -0500 Received: by mail-lb0-f181.google.com with SMTP id l4so16426620lbv.12 for ; Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:23:02 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Sender: ceph-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: Sage Weil Cc: ceph-devel@vger.kernel.org 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. -- Mykola Golub