Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 1167425
[RHSC] RFE: More detail required for disk and brick utilization graphs
Last modified: 2018-08-14 07:16:17 EDT
Created attachment 960884 [details] screenshot Description of problem: ------------------------- The RHSC trends tab for a volume shows the volume utilization graph and the brick utilization graphs for the volume. It might be good to mention the name of the host to which the brick belongs, in the brick utilization graph. See screenshot for a volume having two bricks, each on a different host, with identical paths. It becomes difficult to understand which host a particular brick belongs to. Version-Release number of selected component (if applicable): -------------------------------------------------------------- rhsc-monitoring-uiplugin-0.1.3-1.el6rhs.noarch How reproducible: ------------------ Always Steps to Reproduce: -------------------- 1. Look at the trends tab in RHSC for a volume. Actual results: ----------------- Brick utilization graphs do not mention the host to which the brick belongs. Expected results: ------------------ Brick utilization graphs should indicate the host to which the brick belongs. Additional info:
Instead of Brick Path : <path> show it as Brick Utilization : <path>
Please fix the following issues as part of this BZ - 1. Host address/name is missing in the brick utilization graphs shown in the volume trends tab of RHSC making it difficult to differentiate between bricks residing on different hosts. 2. A similar issue is that different graphs for a particular disk (space utilization, inode utilization, thin-pool space, and thin-pool metadata utilization) need to be enhanced with proper titles without which it is difficult to differentiate between different graphs for the same disk on the trends tab for a host. Other issues in the trends tab are - Not all disk utilization graphs are shown on the host trends tab in RHSC - will be addressed by BZ #1121612 Not all network interfaces on a host are shown in the host trends tab in RHSC - will be addressed by BZ #1200248
*** Bug 1243537 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Thank you for your report. This bug is filed against a component for which no further new development is being undertaken