In other words, 1. we've got 3 racks ( 1 replica per rack ) 2. in every rack we have 3 hosts 3. every host has 22 OSD's 4. all pg_num's are 2^n for every pool 5. we enabled "crush tunables optimal". 6. on every machine we disabled 4 unused disk's (osd out, osd reweight 0 and osd rm) Pool ".rgw.buckets": one osd has 105 PGs and other one (on the same machine) has 144 PGs (37% more!). Other pools also have got this problem. It's not efficient placement. -- Regards Dominik 2014-02-02 Dominik Mostowiec <dominikmostowiec@xxxxxxxxx>: > 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 -- Pozdrawiam Dominik _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |