On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 3:36 PM, Межов Игорь Александрович <megov@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > What is the more right way to do it: > > - replace 12x1tb drives with 12x2tb drives, so we will have 2 nodes full of > 2tb drives and > > other nodes remains in 12x1tb confifg > > - or replace 1tb to 2tb drives in more unify way, so every node will have > 6x1tb + 6x2tb drives? > > > I feel that the second way will give more smooth distribution among the > nodes, and > > outage of one node may give lesser impact on cluster. Am I right and what > you can > > advice me in such a situation? You are correct. The CRUSH weight assigned to an OSD depends on its capacity, so in order to fill a cluster evenly we have to write 2x as quickly to a 2TB OSD than a 1TB OSD. If some nodes had all the big drives, then the network interfaces to those nodes would be overloaded compared with the network interfaces to the other nodes. However, even if the drives are spread out across nodes such that there is no network imbalance, you will still have the local imbalance within a node: if you are writing (across many PGs) 100MB/s to the 2TB drives then you will only be writing 50MB/s to the 1TB drives. You could solve this in turn with some creative arrangement of pools with crush rules to make sure that each pool was only using a single drive size: that way you could have two pools that each got full bandwidth, but one pool would be smaller than the other. But if you don't care about the bandwidth under-utilization on the older drives, then that would be unnecessary complication. John _______________________________________________ ceph-users mailing list ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
 |