Hi,
ceph=0.56.2.
I wonder where is the right place to look for actual weights of OSDs?
Why "ceph osd tree" and freshly exported crusmap differ in weights?
# ceph osd tree
# id weight type name up/down reweight
-2 6.2 host ceph2
0 0.4 osd.0 up 0.373
2 3 osd.2 up 2.8
4 2.8 osd.4 up 0.373
-1 10.9 pool default
-7 6.2 ups 10KVA
-3 6.2 rack rack1
-2 6.2 host ceph2
0 0.4 osd.0 up 0.373
2 3 osd.2 up 2.8
4 2.8 osd.4 up 0.373
-8 4.7 ups 6KVA
-6 4.7 rack rack4
-4 2 host ceph1
1 2 osd.1 up 1.9
-9 2.7 host ceph4
3 2.7 osd.3 up 2.8
(above weights are correct)
# ceph health detail
HEALTH_WARN 1 near full osd(s)
osd.4 is near full at 94%
Afterwards did :
"ceph osd getcrushmap -o map.bin" + "crushtool -d map.bin -o map.plain"
and here is the excerpt from map.plain:
...
# buckets
host ceph2 {
id -2 # do not change unnecessarily
# weight 6.200
alg straw
hash 0 # rjenkins1
item osd.0 weight 0.400
item osd.2 weight 3.000
item osd.4 weight 2.800
...
I see now why my osd.4 is filling faster than its twin osd.0.
At some point in past I did "ceph osd reweight osd.x Z.Z" to tune
weights to match actual TB size of disks, cluster did data rebalancing
so weights should be the same crush is using, right?
Any thoughts?
I will rewrite crushmap weights by hand and try to import the crushmap
- hope this will rebalance OSDs.
Or are there other suggestions how to solve this?
Ugis
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
