On 2/18/2015 3:24 PM, Florian Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 18, 2015 at 9:09 PM, Brian Rak <brak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
What does your crushmap look like (ceph osd getcrushmap -o
/tmp/crushmap; crushtool -d /tmp/crushmap)? Does your placement logic
prevent Ceph from selecting an OSD for the third replica?
Cheers,
Florian
I have 5 hosts, and it's configured like this:
That's not the full crushmap, so I'm a bit reduced to guessing...
I wasn't sure the rest of it was useful. The full one can be found
here:
https://gist.githubusercontent.com/devicenull/db9a3fbaa0df2138071b/raw/4158a6205692eb5a2ba73831e7f51ececd8eb1a5/gistfile1.txt
root default {
id -1 # do not change unnecessarily
# weight 204.979
alg straw
hash 0 # rjenkins1
item osd01 weight 12.670
item osd02 weight 14.480
item osd03 weight 14.480
item osd04 weight 79.860
item osd05 weight 83.490
Whence the large weight difference? Are osd04 and osd05 really that
much bigger in disk space?
Yes, osd04 and osd05 have 3-4x the number of disks as osd01-osd3
rule replicated_ruleset {
ruleset 0
type replicated
min_size 1
max_size 10
step take default
step chooseleaf firstn 0 type host
step emit
}
This should not be preventing the assignment (AFAIK). Currently the PG is
on osd01 and osd05.
Just checking, sure you're not running short on space (close to 90%
utilization) on one of your OSD filesystems?
No, they're all under 10% used. The cluster as a whole only has about
6TB used (out of 196 TB).
_______________________________________________
ceph-users mailing list
ceph-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ceph.com/listinfo.cgi/ceph-users-ceph.com
