Hi, For more info: crush: http://dysk.onet.pl/link/r4wGK osd_dump: http://dysk.onet.pl/link/I3YMZ pg_dump: http://dysk.onet.pl/link/4jkqM -- Regards Dominik 2014-02-02 Dominik Mostowiec <dominikmostowiec@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > Hmm, > You think about sumarize PGs from different pools on one OSD's i think. > But for one pool (.rgw.buckets) where i have almost of all my data, PG > count on OSDs is aslo different. > For example 105 vs 144 PGs from pool .rgw.buckets. In first case it is > 52% disk usage, second 74%. > > -- > Regards > Dominik > > > 2014-02-02 Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> It occurs to me that this (and other unexplain variance reports) could >> easily be the 'hashpspool' flag not being set. The old behavior had the >> misfeature where consecutive pool's pg's would 'line up' on the same osds, >> so that 1.7 == 2.6 == 3.5 == 4.4 etc would map to the same nodes. This >> tends to 'amplify' any variance in the placement. The default is still to >> use the old behavior for compatibility (this will finally change in >> firefly). >> >> You can do >> >> ceph osd pool set <poolname> hashpspool true >> >> to enable the new placement logic on an existing pool, but be warned that >> this will rebalance *all* of the data in the pool, which can be a very >> heavyweight operation... >> >> sage >> >> >> On Sun, 2 Feb 2014, Dominik Mostowiec wrote: >> >>> Hi, >>> After scrubbing almost all PGs has equal(~) num of objects. >>> I found something else. >>> On one host PG coun on OSDs: >>> OSD with small(52%) disk usage: >>> count, pool >>> 105 3 >>> 18 4 >>> 3 5 >>> >>> Osd with larger(74%) disk usage: >>> 144 3 >>> 31 4 >>> 2 5 >>> >>> Pool 3 is .rgw.buckets (where is almost of all data). >>> Pool 4 is .log, where is no data. >>> >>> Count of PGs shouldn't be the same per OSD ? >>> Or maybe PG hash algorithm is disrupted by wrong count of PG for pool >>> '4'. There is 1440 PGs ( this is not power of 2 ). >>> >>> ceph osd dump: >>> pool 0 'data' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 64 pgp_num 64 last_change 28459 owner 0 >>> crash_replay_interval 45 >>> pool 1 'metadata' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 1 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 64 pgp_num 64 last_change 28460 owner 0 >>> pool 2 'rbd' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 2 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 64 pgp_num 64 last_change 28461 owner 0 >>> pool 3 '.rgw.buckets' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 >>> object_hash rjenkins pg_num 8192 pgp_num 8192 last_change 73711 owner >>> 0 >>> pool 4 '.log' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 1440 pgp_num 1440 last_change 28463 owner 0 >>> pool 5 '.rgw' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 128 pgp_num 128 last_change 72467 owner 0 >>> pool 6 '.users.uid' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 28465 owner 0 >>> pool 7 '.users' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 28466 owner 0 >>> pool 8 '.usage' rep size 2 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 28467 owner >>> 18446744073709551615 >>> pool 9 '.intent-log' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 28468 owner >>> 18446744073709551615 >>> pool 10 '.rgw.control' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 >>> object_hash rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 33485 owner >>> 18446744073709551615 >>> pool 11 '.rgw.gc' rep size 3 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 33487 owner >>> 18446744073709551615 >>> pool 12 '.rgw.root' rep size 2 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash >>> rjenkins pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 44540 owner 0 >>> pool 13 '' rep size 2 min_size 1 crush_ruleset 0 object_hash rjenkins >>> pg_num 8 pgp_num 8 last_change 46912 owner 0 >>> >>> -- >>> Regards >>> Dominik >>> >>> 2014-02-01 Dominik Mostowiec <dominikmostowiec@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> > Hi, >>> >> Did you bump pgp_num as well? >>> > Yes. >>> > >>> > See: http://dysk.onet.pl/link/BZ968 >>> > >>> >> 25% pools is two times smaller from other. >>> > This is changing after scrubbing. >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Regards >>> > Dominik >>> > >>> > 2014-02-01 Kyle Bader <kyle.bader@xxxxxxxxx>: >>> >> >>> >>> Change pg_num for .rgw.buckets to power of 2, an 'crush tunables >>> >>> optimal' didn't help :( >>> >> >>> >> Did you bump pgp_num as well? The split pgs will stay in place until pgp_num >>> >> is bumped as well, if you do this be prepared for (potentially lots) of data >>> >> movement. >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Pozdrawiam >>> > Dominik >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Pozdrawiam >>> Dominik >>> >>> > > > > -- > Pozdrawiam > Dominik -- Pozdrawiam Dominik _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |