Sory, i forgot to tell You. It can be important. We done: ceph osd reweight-by-utilization 105 ( as i wrote in second mail ). and after cluster stack on 'active+remapped' PGs we had to reweight it back to 1.0. (all reweighted osd's) This osdmap is not from active+clean cluster, rebalancing is in progress. If you need i'll send you osdmap from clean cluster. Let me know. -- Regards Dominik 2014-02-03 Dominik Mostowiec <dominikmostowiec@xxxxxxxxx>: > Hi, > Thanks, > In attachement. > > > -- > Regards > Dominik > > > 2014-02-03 Sage Weil <sage@xxxxxxxxxxx>: >> Hi Dominik, >> >> Can you send a copy of your osdmap? >> >> ceph osd getmap -o /tmp/osdmap >> >> (Can send it off list if the IP addresses are sensitive.) I'm tweaking >> osdmaptool to have a --test-map-pgs option to look at this offline. >> >> Thanks! >> sage >> >> >> On Mon, 3 Feb 2014, Dominik Mostowiec wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> > > > > -- > Pozdrawiam > Dominik -- Pozdrawiam Dominik _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |