Re: Num of PGs

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/12/2013 02:19 PM, Stefan Priebe - Profihost AG wrote:
Right now I have 4096. 36*100/3 => 1200. As recovery take ages I thought this might be the reason.

Are you seeing any craziness on the mons?


Stefan

This mail was sent with my iPhone.

Am 12.07.2013 um 17:03 schrieb Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:

On 07/12/2013 09:53 AM, Gandalf Corvotempesta wrote:
2013/7/12 Mark Nelson <mark.nelson@xxxxxxxxxxx>:
At large numbers of PGs it may not matter very much, but I don't think it
would hurt either!

Basically this has to do with how ceph_stable_mod works.  At
non-power-of-two values, the bucket counts aren't even, but that's only a
small part of the story and may ultimately only have a small effect on the
distribution unless the PG count is small.

In case of 12 OSDs for each node, and a cluster made with 18 storage
nodes are you suggesting:

(12*18*100) / 3 = 7200 PGs, that rounded to an exponent of 2 means 8192 ?

Well, our official recommendation on the website is PGS = OSDS * 100 / replicas.  I think the thought is that with sufficient numbers of OSDs the behaviour of ceph_stable_mod shouldn't matter (much).  At some point I'd like to do a little more involved of an analysis to see how PG distribution changes, but for now I wouldn't really expect a dramatic difference between 7200 and 8192 PGs.

Mark
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com

_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com




[Index of Archives]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux Filesystem Development]     [Ceph Development]     [Ceph Large]     [Ceph Dev]     [Linux USB Development]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]     [xfs]


  Powered by Linux