Bug 1340918
Summary: | Utilization by storage profile chart | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Red Hat Storage] Red Hat Storage Console | Reporter: | Lubos Trilety <ltrilety> |
Component: | UI | Assignee: | kamlesh <kaverma> |
Status: | CLOSED WONTFIX | QA Contact: | Martin Bukatovic <mbukatov> |
Severity: | unspecified | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | 2 | CC: | julim, mbukatov, mcarrano, nthomas, sankarshan |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | 3 | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | rhscon-ceph-0.0.23-1.el7scon.x86_64, rhscon-core-0.0.24-1.el7scon.x86_64, rhscon-ui-0.0.39-1.el7scon.noarch | Doc Type: | If docs needed, set a value |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2017-03-23 04:12:40 UTC | Type: | Bug |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Attachments: |
This is as per UX design. Only default profiles will be shown and rest are grouped as 'others' (In reply to Nishanth Thomas from comment #1) > This is as per UX design. Only default profiles will be shown and rest are > grouped as 'others' I failed to find any reference in our design documents backing your claim. Moreover the screenshot clearly shows that the labels of storage profiles are overlapping each other and so unreadable. Because of this, I'm moving the BZ back to NEW, as I see the following action items: We need to see a reference to a clear decision about grouping additional storage profile into "others" before calling it a non issue. Moreover we may also ask UX team to join this discussion. Besides that the problem with overlapping labels is valid and should be tracked so that we can fix it. Yes, I agree with Martin. The current implementation does not work. I had redesigned the Storage Profile reporting to use separate bar charts for the first three profiles and then Other to aggregate any remaining profiles. Other will only appear when there are more than 3 profiles present. So the top 3 represent the most used profiles. This will prevent overlapping that is happening now. The new design is attached to this Trello card that is part of the current sprint: https://trello.com/c/EIAfxSkg You can see details here. Hopefully that is in the process of being implemented and the issue will be resolved. Created attachment 1184605 [details]
screenshot 2: main dashboard (shows storage profiles charts for default and others)
Attaching evidence screenshot for the previous comment.
Created attachment 1185104 [details]
UX Design for the Storage Profiles widgit on Dashboard
This is the intended design based on showing the 3 default storage profiles, and if user-defined any other storage profiles in the system, it would be aggregated together under "Other".
Original intent: If we are able to provide the 3 default storage profiles out-of-the-box, any other user-defined storage profiles get "lumped" together under "Other". Note, if there are only 4 storage profiles in the System, you could just show the 4th storage profile name vs. using "Other". Recommendation: I know previously (and I don't know if it still persists) we had no way yet of determining the type of disk we had, and so all the disks were put together in a "Default" storage profile. If this is still the case, as long as there is < 4 storage profiles, I would suggest listing them all. If there are more than 4 storage profiles in the system, I would show the top 3 used storage profiles followed by all the rest lumped together in an "Other" grouping. From speaking with mbukatov, it appears that if your cluster has all homogenous disks, and all of them get lumped into 1 of the default storage groups, and all other user-defined storage profiles that get lumped into "Others", what happens is that from a user experience perspective you see only 2 storage profiles, e.g. "Default" and "Others." While technical it's not incorrect, it's not optimized for the user, as the user will want to know what the top storage profiles are. Note: If user does not use any of the default storage profiles, seeing everything lumped under "Other" is probably not too useful. Thus, as long as there are less than 4 storage profiles, we should plan to show all the storage profiles, and if greater than 4, show the top 3 + others (the rest). If not resolved in the 1.0 timeframe, I'd recommend fixing this in a future release so that it provides more meaningful data to the user. I have a quick discussion about this BZ with Ju and together we indentified the problem which caused misunderstanding here. The design states that: * top 3 bars representing the most used storage profiles should be shown (no matter if they are predefined or custom user created ones) * the picture of the design shows all custom profiles squashed in Others RHSC 2.0 storage profile describes cluster hierarchy and placement rules of crush map. So when admin assigns OSDs into the profile, RHSC 2.0 will create the hierarchy and placement rules for it. On the other hand, when no OSDs are assigned to default storage profile, no hierarchy or rules are created and so such profile is not shown in utilization widgets. Since all the examples from desing team showed all 3 default storage profiles with OSDs assigned (and data stored there), the custom ones were shown in the Others item. But when there are OSDs just in default storage profile and some custom one (as shown in screenshot 2 attached to this BZ), I would expect that the full name of both would be shown - as the design states - which is why I have made this BZ FailedQA. While Ju aggreed with this, the design never coped with such case because design team didn't anticipated that the default storage profiles would not be shown in the widget (the reason why storage profile may not be shown there is explained in the previous paragraph). This made the dev team implement the feature as follows: custom storage profiles would be squashed into "Others" bar in the utilization widget every time, no matter how many storage profiles are actually defined (in crush map). Based on the the input from PM and Dev team, I will assume that the dev description of the feature (as explained above) is intended functionality and so I'm going to reverify this BZ with this in mind. Based on comment 11, I'm going to reverify the BZ. Checking with: rhscon-core-0.0.36-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-ui-0.0.50-1.el7scon.noarch rhscon-ceph-0.0.36-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-core-selinux-0.0.36-1.el7scon.noarch ceph-installer-1.0.14-1.el7scon.noarch ceph-ansible-1.0.5-31.el7scon.noarch While I'm ok with squashing all custom storage profiles into Others (as noted in comment 11) and I see the feature implemented as shown in the design (as linked in comment 8), I find one issue with the current implementation: There is no tooltip (shown when cursor is moved over the Others bar in the utilization chart) which would show the list of custom profiles (with names and utilization percentage). This also means that in the whole UI, there is no way how to list storage profiles for a given cluster. Because of this, I'm moving the BZ back to assigned. Created attachment 1185419 [details]
screenshot 4: Most Used Storage Profiles widget of main dashboard, missing tooltip highlighted
|
Created attachment 1162927 [details] cluster dashboard Description of problem: 'Utilization by storage profile' chart shows all created profiles as 'Others'. Moreover those storage profiles names overlaps each other. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): rhscon-core-0.0.19-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-ceph-0.0.18-1.el7scon.x86_64 rhscon-ui-0.0.34-1.el7scon.noarch How reproducible: 100% Steps to Reproduce: 1. Create some cluster and add new storage profiles with some OSDs 2. Create some pools on several storage profiles 3. Create some objects in pools Actual results: 'Utilization by storage profile' chart shows all created profiles as 'Others'. Moreover those storage profiles names overlaps each other. Expected results: All storage profiles names are displayed correctly for the chart. Additional info: